|
Arrath posted:Somehow I'm not surprised! It's nice to hear that the Soviets could field worthless systems, too. I was really only posting about the doctrinal directions/influences and the systems they spawned, in my utter layperson/lurker level of knowledge. FYI you should not be taking Wargame at all as a serious reflection of military hardware at any time period and I say this as someone with >1000 hours in its multiplayer. In Airland Battle the Soviets play with vehicles that are 3-5 years newer than everyone else's and in Red Dragon half the stuff never existed.
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2015 01:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 23, 2024 11:14 |
|
|
Mazz posted:
But it's so cute and makes me think of popcorn 
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2015 01:59
|
|
|
priznat posted:Is the ADATS system good? ADATS stopped existing because the Cold War ended. They were training manuals and all ready to go. It was IIRC going to be mounted primarily on a Bradley chassis, but could go on all sorts of poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2015 03:39
|
|
|
I know Canada has them on M113 type chassis: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=etVeZtaCFos Love the music, reminds me of the segues on he Kids in the Hall show. I read the missiles were 3mil+ a pop so they're only gonna get shot at a Tu-95 on an attack run on the parliament buildings in Ottawa (and even then after top DND approval) priznat fucked around with this message at 03:46 on Feb 1, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2015 03:43
|
|
|
Panzeh posted:The Soviets developed their entire aerial warfare doctrine around working within US air dominance(for example, there's a focus on long range aerial cruise missiles and anti-radiation missiles designed to attack AWACS planes.). It's very telling how they considered their prospects in that regard, though it did lead them to develop air defense in a more comprehensive way than the US. Arrath posted:This came about in large part because the Soviets spent a large part of WWII with the Luftwaffe overhead, didn't it? Meanwhile the American experience of usually having air superiority led to projects like the York being a big pile of poop and the reaction was a big "welp, the fighters and chapparel or whatever will do". Meanwhile the Soviets are designing loads of ZSU's, the Tunguska, etc to blot down anything that wants to try having a go. So then we make Apaches with pop-up fire and forget missiles, A-10s with enough armor to hopefully make a few runs on an armored column and so on. Y'know, everyone likes to hypothesize about how Russian development was driven by their experiences in WWII or by expectations about a Fulda Gap scenario, but I honestly think it has more to do with how the Russians planned to integrate air power with ground forces. (Frontal Aviation being a separate service from Air Defense, emphasis on centralized control and execution, lack of air refueling capability, etc.)
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2015 06:13
|
|
|
Mortabis posted:FYI you should not be taking Wargame at all as a serious reflection of military hardware at any time period and I say this as someone with >1000 hours in its multiplayer. In Airland Battle the Soviets play with vehicles that are 3-5 years newer than everyone else's and in Red Dragon half the stuff never existed. I wasn't being serious about that :shhh: That'd be like saying World in Conflict demonstrated the uselessness of all ground based AA because a half dozen Apaches could volley fire hellfires and blow up an army group's worth of Buks and then run rampant on the rest of the armor. But really if I didn't have a layered defence of manpads teams in forests, backed by flakpanzers and their autocannon armed transports backstopped by rolands then 30 Hinds would show up and demolish my fighting force from nowhere.  Now I am curious why the ZSU 57 was so bad. Low shell velocity further hamstringing an already anemic engagement envelope? Useless fire control? Suboptimal turret tracking and elevation speeds? Couldn't fire enough rounds in the small window it got to have a reasonable chance of doing damage? E: Oh, it's a shortly post-WWII design, I thought it came later, rather than before the -23-4 Arrath fucked around with this message at 06:34 on Feb 1, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2015 06:18
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:Y'know, everyone likes to hypothesize about how Russian development was driven by their experiences in WWII or by expectations about a Fulda Gap scenario, but I honestly think it has more to do with how the Russians planned to integrate air power with ground forces. (Frontal Aviation being a separate service from Air Defense, emphasis on centralized control and execution, lack of air refueling capability, etc.) Yeah, you're not wrong with that, either, though I don't think a country that expects to be able to conduct large scale air operations against NATO develops conventional ballistic missile capability to the scale that the Russians/Soviets did. Arrath posted:Now I am curious why the ZSU 57 was so bad. Low shell velocity further hamstringing an already anemic engagement envelope? Useless fire control? Suboptimal turret tracking and elevation speeds? Couldn't fire enough rounds in the small window it got to have a reasonable chance of doing damage? The ZSU-57 used a hand cranked turret. They did have some use as fire support vehicles but that was mostly the client states trying to find something to do with them. The old M113 VADS also lacked any kind of radar system, either, though it saw some service in Vietnam because AA guns have a knack for being useful in ground support roles.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2015 14:03
|
|
|
Warbadger posted:What the US didn't do was put short or medium range missiles on tracked vehicles like the SA-6/8/9/11/13/15, it just kept on trucking with the semi-mobile HAWK. Chaparral was in service through 1998, Bradley Linebacker (and BSFV) were around until 2006, Avenger is still in use. That being said the US has tried several times to develop a medium range replacement (Roland and then ADATS and then SLAMRAAM) but all were derailed by various things which has left us now with nothing in between Stinger and Patriot which is a big problem. The latest attempt is IFPC which will no doubt be a resounding success.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2015 17:17
|
|
|
I love how it doesn't even mention any ability to target planes., like why would you want your SHORAD system to shoot at planes?
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2015 17:20
|
|
|
The Marines are in a similar funk where it seems like no one wants to foot money for air defense until some wondertech matures. Every time you get a briefing from the Marine LAAD folks, they have a different concept on the new air defense system/vehicle based on whatever tech has come out in the past couple years. The only thing that gives me a shred of optimism about anything shorter range than TBM-killers is the proliferation of UAVs. edit: and FWIW, there are a ton of advances for Avenger that partner nations are buying, but the US is ignoring, because the US has an insane Air Force capability and friendlier neighbors that partner nations don't have.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2015 17:21
|
|
|
Mortabis posted:I love how it doesn't even mention any ability to target planes., like why would you want your SHORAD system to shoot at planes? That page is out of date, it has actually fairly recently been updated to include fixed wing. That being said the fixed wing target set for that kind of system is practically nonexistent.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2015 17:23
|
|
|
bewbies posted:Chaparral was in service through 1998, Bradley Linebacker (and BSFV) were around until 2006, Avenger is still in use. That being said the US has tried several times to develop a medium range replacement (Roland and then ADATS and then SLAMRAAM) but all were derailed by various things which has left us now with nothing in between Stinger and Patriot which is a big problem. The latest attempt is IFPC which will no doubt be a resounding success. I meant short range to mean things like the SA-13 and SA-8 which had *relatively* short ranges, but still a hell of a lot more than MANPADS. You're right about the Chapparal, it was more or less like the SA-9 or SA-13.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2015 17:47
|
|
|
Panzeh posted:The old M113 VADS also lacked any kind of radar system, either, though it saw some service in Vietnam because AA guns have a knack for being useful in ground support roles. I have vaguely wondered why the US never deployed the VADS in a ground support role in Iraq & Afghanistan. Tons of firepower mounted high enough to shoot over everyone's heads, and set up for high angle fire in cities. Were they just too vulnerable?
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2015 18:58
|
|
|
winnydpu posted:I have vaguely wondered why the US never deployed the VADS in a ground support role in Iraq & Afghanistan. Tons of firepower mounted high enough to shoot over everyone's heads, and set up for high angle fire in cities. Were they just too vulnerable? Not sure, but they did field a version of the Avenger to Afghanistan that pulled off one of the missile pods and loaded up something like 4x as much .50 ammo for the M3P.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2015 19:04
|
|
winnydpu posted:I have vaguely wondered why the US never deployed the VADS in a ground support role in Iraq & Afghanistan. Tons of firepower mounted high enough to shoot over everyone's heads, and set up for high angle fire in cities. Were they just too vulnerable? Because it wasn't necessary. US troops aren't/weren't losing firefights for want of firepower.
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2015 19:11
|
|
|
Panzeh posted:Yeah, you're not wrong with that, either, though I don't think a country that expects to be able to conduct large scale air operations against NATO develops conventional ballistic missile capability to the scale that the Russians/Soviets did.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2015 20:09
|
|
|
winnydpu posted:I have vaguely wondered why the US never deployed the VADS in a ground support role in Iraq & Afghanistan. Tons of firepower mounted high enough to shoot over everyone's heads, and set up for high angle fire in cities. Were they just too vulnerable? Vulcans were long gone from the inventory and their gun and targeting are significantly worse than a Bradley's. We used Avengers quite a bit in the early years in OIF because they were the only mobile platform that had a targeteable FLIR capability but that was remedied fairly quickly on much better protected systems so they were pretty much gone by 2007.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2015 20:18
|
|
|
I'm not sure if I should post this here, or in the A-Team thread. http://www.theguardian.com/world/video/2015/jan/31/kobani-tank-isis-kurdish-islamic-state-video Pablo Bluth fucked around with this message at 21:28 on Feb 1, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2015 20:20
|
|
|
Pablo Bluth posted:I'm not sure if I should post this here, or in the A-Tea thread. That is pretty loving awesome.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2015 21:18
|
|
|
Pablo Bluth posted:I'm not sure if I should post this here, or in the A-Team thread. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pX71mALOPKs
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2015 22:36
|
|
|
Mazz posted:Case in point: the Su-27 airframe is still being upgraded to do all sorts of impressive stuff, yet they still went ahead with the PAK-FA. Some of us think the Pak-Fa may actually still be part of the Flanker family.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2015 23:11
|
|
|
Way back when grover (yeah I know everyone likes to beat up on him) had a couple on-point posts about the PAK-FA being more or less just another Flanker.grover posted:The PAK-FA is at about the same point in its development as the F-22 was in 1993, but at just a tiny fraction of the funding. It took the F-22 14 years from the prototype competition to develop into a 5th gen fighter, and Russia's talking about it full production of PAK-FA beginning in a year? The only way that's possible is if they're using off-the-shelf (eg, Soviet) technology, and the PAK-FA is just an Su-27 with a body kit, which would not make it a 5th generation fighter. Which makes most of the performance claims gross exaggerations at best, and outright lies at worst: the PAK-FA of Russian claims appears to be complete vaporware. grover posted:The PAK-FA that Russia boasts so proudly of is a 5th generation with stealth, supercruise, artificial intelligence, world-class performance and basically the equivilent to (or better) than the US's F-22A.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2015 00:03
|
|
|
Mortabis posted:Way back when grover (yeah I know everyone likes to beat up on him) had a couple on-point posts about the PAK-FA being more or less just another Flanker. Hey don't post that stuff in any of the forums/sites where Russians go, they will go loving berserk. In their minds PAK-FA is already a done deal, 100+ aircraft are rolling out the factory gates within a very short time frame and it's going to blow all the F-22s, F-35s, Tyhpoons and what not out of the sky.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2015 00:29
|
|
|
 Duster's gonna dust. Apparently, dual 40's were very good fire support in Vietnam. I'd say the system probably was about the same as the ZSU-57-2 in that regard, albeit with a smaller round. 
Dandywalken fucked around with this message at 01:30 on Feb 2, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2015 01:11
|
|
|
Mazz posted:On the F-15/F-22, it's pretty relevant to look up what the F-22 has been able to do to the F-15 in mock combat. It's literally the evolution of concepts learned in the F-15, and sometimes it makes a lot more sense to spend the extra money on something brand new then trying to make the old thing feel new again. Coming back to this for a second, forgot to reply before. I don't doubt that the F-22 is an upgrade over F-15 in terms of its dogfighting/close air combat capability, but just how big of a step forward is it? Because in mock combats F-22s have been taken out by F-16s, Rafaeles, Typhoons and Growlers. For me the main concern is that it is totally untested in real combat situations and will likely remain that way, unless US decides to go to war again, which doesn't seem too probable given the current climate in that regard.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2015 01:11
|
|
|
The big question is less which situations the F-22 the fighter jet will lose in and more which of those situations the F-22 the component of the US air combined arms team could end up in.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2015 01:17
|
|
|
I always figured that F-22's will not be alone in theory. An enemy that see's multiple targets in the air could discern an E3, couple of Growlers, and then some other crap. Once they adjust their radar, they can discern that some of the crap fits the profile of F-16's, and a few F-15's. There's still a bunch of other crap up there that cant be ID'd due to jamming etc. Somewhere in that ocean of airborne crap are F-22's. Meanwhile by adjusting their (the radar battery in the example) emissions, they're hinting at their radar type and possibly giving away their location for potential SEAD strikes and have to keep defensive options in mind. Or at least thats how Command: Modern Air Naval Operations has led me to believe. You'll generally know after awhile "yeah, there are some F-22's/PAK-FA's/J-20's afoot!" but unless you're solely up there looking for them in particular in an evenly matched scenario, they're most likely to come in and smoke older aircraft while they're, for instance, disengaging or trying to track enemy EW emissions.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2015 01:37
|
|
|
I just love it when people start talking about Growlers because I have a 14-year-old's sense of humour
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2015 02:00
|
|
|
Godholio posted:Some of us think the Pak-Fa may actually still be part of the Flanker family. I still think that's a really weird statement.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2015 02:13
|
|
|
I'm not sure why we laugh at the inefficiency of Russia/China's military sometimes: The Royal Navy's austerity program is so bad that they are hiring Canadian, American, New Zealander and French Naval engineers to keep their ships sailing. This is of course worsening the shortage of these engineers in all of those countries.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2015 02:13
|
|
|
OhYeah posted:Coming back to this for a second, forgot to reply before. I don't doubt that the F-22 is an upgrade over F-15 in terms of its dogfighting/close air combat capability, but just how big of a step forward is it? Because in mock combats F-22s have been taken out by F-16s, Rafaeles, Typhoons and Growlers. For me the main concern is that it is totally untested in real combat situations and will likely remain that way, unless US decides to go to war again, which doesn't seem too probable given the current climate in that regard. The thing there is that they've been going up against F-15s in things like Red Flag and whatever the Alaska one is called for a while now. While the F-15 is "battle tested," it's absolutely outclassed by the F-22 in comparable situations to those you'd find in Israel and ODS, the places the F-15 earned its keep. Everything the F-15 does, the F-22 is basically proven to do better... except maybe supply pilots with oxygen but I'm pretty sure they already refitted those tanks into most of them IIRC. Stealth is not the only strength of the F-22, it's just a primary one. There are several people in this thread who've personally dealt with 22s (I'm not one), and they've all said the 22 is pretty god drat good at what it was built to do. It's not unbeatable, and yes some others have had luck shooting it down. It'd be kind of amazing if that wasn't the case at some point, especially as you run it through programs that don't play to its explicit strengths. Also, on a side note, they had made several important advances in concepts we discussed in this thread before: for example the TALON HATE targeting pod gives teen series fighters the ability to talk to the F-22 in a way where the F-22 can do terminal guidance for their shooting without revealing itself. It's the exploitation of stuff like this that makes the F-22 truly terrifying IMO: When it doesn't have to be the shooter at all. EDIT: On the PAK-FA, it seems like you could make a good argument in either direction (Flanker++ or new plane) so I'll leave it alone. Mazz fucked around with this message at 03:35 on Feb 2, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2015 03:24
|
|
|
I'm trying to make a go of reading the whole thing, and it is kinda nightmarish. Did you know that NK soldiers don't really have good protection against chemical or biological weapons, and thus that makes them much more likely to be used in a civil war? 
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2015 03:56
|
|
|
OhYeah posted:Coming back to this for a second, forgot to reply before. I don't doubt that the F-22 is an upgrade over F-15 in terms of its dogfighting/close air combat capability, but just how big of a step forward is it? Because in mock combats F-22s have been taken out by F-16s, Rafaeles, Typhoons and Growlers. For me the main concern is that it is totally untested in real combat situations and will likely remain that way, unless US decides to go to war again, which doesn't seem too probable given the current climate in that regard. lol at "taken out" The F-22 is light years ahead of everything else out there...any time any other fighter has gotten a "kill" on it it's been because of scenario-isms...either limits placed on the Raptor or situations where the other aircraft died 20 times before they were able to close but weren't ruled dead because being killed before you even know there's a bad guy out there doesn't give much training value. You put a four-ship of F-22s against anything else in a no holds barred scenario and they're going to keep killing everything until they run out of targets or out of missiles (and even then they'll probably keep gunning stuff until they're out of 20mm). Hence why there's usually limits placed on them during exercises, because a bunch of unstoppable terminator fighters kind of lowers the training value for everyone else. simplefish posted:I just love it when people start talking about Growlers because I have a 14-year-old's sense of humour It was originally supposed to be named the Shocker:  
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2015 04:03
|
|
|
Um, am I the only one here who doesn't get why Growler/Shocker are considered ribald? I mean, Shocker just sounds silly, but Growler sounds perfectly fine, like Prowler. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2015 04:12
|
|
|
I suggest you look up the urban dictionary definitions of "Shocker" and "Growler".
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2015 04:16
|
|
|
M42 Duster and the Vulcan M113 were pretty cool.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2015 04:29
|
|
|
MRC48B posted:I suggest you look up the urban dictionary definitions of "Shocker" and "Growler". And then look closely at the Shocker patches.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2015 04:46
|
|
|
OhYeah posted:Coming back to this for a second, forgot to reply before. I don't doubt that the F-22 is an upgrade over F-15 in terms of its dogfighting/close air combat capability, but just how big of a step forward is it? Because in mock combats F-22s have been taken out by F-16s, Rafaeles, Typhoons and Growlers. For me the main concern is that it is totally untested in real combat situations and will likely remain that way, unless US decides to go to war again, which doesn't seem too probable given the current climate in that regard. It's as good as the hype claims. I realize just how hard that is to believe, but the F-22 really is as good as they say it is. I used to work for a colonel who had a MiG kill in Desert Storm. As the 325 OG commander, he was in charge of F-15C and F-22 training at Tyndall. He ended up on a History Channel special getting interviewed about winning a 1 v 5 against F-15s. Most of the mock combats you're talking about don't really count...because the other fighters were already dead. The F-22 is really really good at getting the first shot(s) off, successfully. But if you're flying a training mission and you get schwacked that early every loving time, you're not getting effective training and you're wasting a ton of money. So you keep pressing in as if it didn't happen. Then you've still got a hell of a thing to overcome. I was in one of the fighter squadrons at Tyndall for some reason and four F-16 pilots (I think from Luke) were just coming in after playing against two Raptors. Their squadron commander was proud of himself for getting the only kill. Of course he'd already died, but that's basically the price of admission. One of my Red Flags I was the primary controller for a mission that had an initial wave of F-22s followed by F-15Cs, Es, F-16s, and I think AV-8s. The Raptors killed 97% of the adversaries (F-15s and 16s using Su-30/MiG-29 tactics) on the initial sweep, and includes several bad guys getting to come back to life! It's good. Real good. Have other fighters won fair and square? Absolutely. But have they done so consistently? No. Have they done so through some kind of tactical or technical advantage? No. Generally they do it because the F-22 pilot fucks up. Once in a while it's on the level and the F-22 just loses, but I can honestly say that in the dozens, probably over a hundred, of intercepts I've controlled involving F-22s (I've controlled them and controlled their adversaries) I've never seen it happen firsthand. I'll admit I've never controlled anything but USAF, USN, or USMC assets against Raptors, but even the Typhoon and Rafale haven't been consistent victors. As far as the US being unwilling to go to war again...we've run intercepts against Russian bombers and Iranian fighters, and F-22s routinely deploy to the Middle East and it's not for loving airshows. They launch with live missiles. I don't even know how you come to that conclusion. We're back in Iraq for fucks sake. Edit: As I've said before, the F-22 takes the F-15's lunch money, pushes it in a locker, and fucks its girlfriend. Godholio fucked around with this message at 04:55 on Feb 2, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2015 04:48
|
|
|
Dandywalken posted:Or at least thats how Command: Modern Air Naval Operations has led me to believe. You'll generally know after awhile "yeah, there are some F-22's/PAK-FA's/J-20's afoot!" but unless you're solely up there looking for them in particular in an evenly matched scenario, they're most likely to come in and smoke older aircraft while they're, for instance, disengaging or trying to track enemy EW emissions.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2015 06:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 23, 2024 11:14 |
|
|
Could you elaborate on what I said that's causing an issue? I'm trying to convey that even if an F-22-level platform were detectable (in that its presence confirmed, not necessarily to a degree that a radar can acquire it sufficiently for a shot), the likely circumstances that necessitate an F-22's usage would have a fuckton of other aircraft in the area so going on a frequency-hopping goose chase to look at what may or may not be F-22's isnt advisable. Dandywalken fucked around with this message at 06:47 on Feb 2, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2015 06:38
|
|