AT-6 Weapons Question

[rickshaw]

The limited range of MANPADS will change. Furthermore, there are conventional SAMs that can hit at further than the range at which such a "bomb truck" can hit back; take a look at the most recent developments coming out of Russia. Won't take long until those weapons are in the hands of sufficiently-funded insurgent groups.

If there is one constant in warfare it is that developments always continue.

True.  However, the main limitation on a MANPADS is literally how much a man can carry.  It becomes a tradeoff between range or warhead.  Greater range or speed can only be achieved at the expense of the size of the warhead and vice-a-versa.  Same problem faces short range AT missiles.

I'd also suggest that if the insurgents are using "conventional SAMs" (I wasn't aware that MANPADS were "unconventional" in any way), then they have ceased to be insurgents and therefore are either in or attempting to enter what Mao and Giap referred to as the "third phase" of revolutionary warfare - open warfare.  Short/Medium/Long range SAMs, no matter where they are produced require large infrastructures to operate and maintain them and are subject to SEAD efforts by the other side.   We are therefore moving out of COIN operations and into a whole new ball game and one at which Western militaries tend to excel.

In that case, the manned COIN aircraft won't survive any better than a "bomb truck" although, it should be noted a "bomb truck" is more removed from the battlefield than the COIN aircraft, is larger/tougher and hence more survivable and also better able to be equipped with stronger ECM/ECCM which means it is better able to defend itself.   However, I'd suggest that if the conflict's nature has changed so markedly, then the UCAV/"Bomb Truck" combination might not be the best one to attempt to fight it with, don't you?

[rickshaw]

Okies, but what will the 747 be dropping? (eg LGBs or ASMs)  Will they be able to be designated by the UCAV or GPS guided?  Will they have the accuracy to be able to take out say 3 or 4 insurgents without collateral damage?  Will the cost of such a PGM be worth taking out said insurgents?

Recent years tends to suggest that using PGMs within the Co-In warzone leads to collateral damage with resultant ill will by the civilan population.

Regards,

Mav

This is why smaller bombs with smaller warheads with less splinter and greater blast effects are being developed, Mav.  It is part of the general movement away from trying to destroy targets with inaccurate weapons towards destroying them with precision weapons.  PGMs are, like all electronic systems, getting cheaper - economies of scale and the greater ease of designing computers to do more complex tasks.  Whereas in the past you'd have used a B-52 dropping up to a hundred bombs to try and destroy a target, you'd now drop one or two bombs to do the same job.  Whereas once you'd have used a 1000lb bomb to kill your 2-3 insurgents, nowadays you'd use a 250lb one - the Small Diameter Bomb (SDB) for example.  I see no reason why going even smaller to say 100lb or even 50lb if that was what was required to do the job.

As to the guidance method - which ever is appropriate.  Again, because the systems are becoming cheaper and cheaper it might be better to design a guidance package which uses multiple modes to find its target more accurately.  GPS, Laser, Millimetre Radar or IR.   Just as navigation systems use multiple inputs to be more accurate, so could PGM guidance systems.  Already anti-ship missiles often combine Radar and IR guidance to defeat counter-measures.

[Maverick]

I'm aware of the SDB family, but if you're talking about 'cheap' PGMs, the DAGR radar guided Hydras being developed/produced seem to fit the bill rather than a bomb.  Great stand off distance, one would assume comparable precision, greater weapon load available (ie: multiple tubes in a pod).  The only real problem then becomes the platform, I doubt a bomber configured 747 (although I couldn't see an old design like it being developed to be honest - but hey, let's say an A380) would be the best choice for a weapon of that type.

As from accuracy and smaller weapons, troops on the ground tend to do that, but that leads to casualties which is why we're even having the UCAV arguement because it seems unpopular to actually have people die in wartime, go figure.

Regards,

Mav

[rickshaw]

747 was merely an example.  Thinking about it, an A400 might be a better bet - big open door in the bum already there which you can throw things out of. 

Funny how we've become so casualty adverse.

[Maverick]

Casualty aversion is simple.  Politics.  The pollies are quite happy to instigate actions and send troops into harm's way but aren't quite as happy to see selfsame troops arriving home in boxes.  Tends to put the punters off a bit.

They like things to be nice and clean (much unlike the messes they create).  I actually wonder if this current fad with 'less-than-lethal' weapons within law enforcement will eventually spill over into the mainstream military.

Regards,

Mav

[Old Wombat]

I've been thinking (dangerous, I know, but sometimes I can't help myself) that the UCAV-747/A380/A400/dH Comet( ) concept isn't that bad.

Initially, the UCAV can be used to find the insurgents & identify individual targets (possibly supporting/with the support of ground units). Data which it can transmit to a waiting "bomb-truck" 747/A380/A400/etc. The bomb-truck can be loaded with an assortment of Co-In precision-guided weapons from which the crew can select the appropriate one/s for the mission & drop them. The bomb-truck crew can, then, guide the weapons to within a certain range after which automatic guidance will occur. This terminal guidance will be provided by the UCAV via coded single/multi-point laser (or other target designation method), each weapon dropped will be programmed to target a particular laser/other-embedded code; thus, with any luck, ensuring that the bunker-buster hits the bunker, that the anti-personnel bomb explodes over the training ground & that the projected blast weapon hits the right part of the right roof to take out the cell leader in the room below.

The biggest problem would be velocity control on some/all of the weapons.

With this set-up you could hit a dozen targets in a night, each one being taken out in a matter of seconds with precision time-on-target bombing.

[Maverick]

With all this talk of converted civ stuff as 'bomb-trucks' why not actually use a bomb truck like the B-52?  Still flying and was considered at one time for a turbofan upgrade.  Already built for dropping things and has a prodigious warload to say the very least.

That being said, I'm glad I'm not relying on someone that far removed from the battle to be providing close air.

Regards,

Mav

[ChernayaAkula]

Me, I'd rather have a human being there giving close air support rather than some wannabe sitting in a donger nowhere near the front line.  They might actually be invested in the battle below rather than thinking it's a glorious game.

Huh? How are the UAV drivers "wannabes"? What makes you think they think of it as a game?  

If anything, the fact that the UAV drivers are not fighting for their own lives (as in: sitting in an actual aircraft over the battlefield and avoiding getting blasted out of the sky) means they should be able to devote more time to shooting the right people.

<...>
That being said, I'm glad I'm not relying on someone that far removed from the battle to be providing close air.
<...>

I think the Sniper-equipped B-1Bs were at one time considered the best CAS asset in OIF! So there!  

[pyro-manic]

By the time you "militarise" an A380 or whatever, it'll cost as much, if not more than a B-52. Or a loitering fighter-bomber with a rack-full of small PGMs. As Moritz noted, if a single platform will do the job, why complicate the issue? Fair enough, have a couple of drones as well as the bomber on station to help spot targets.

As for UAV controllers, I can certainly see where Mav's coming from - I think there's an awful lot to be said for the sense of urgency given by actually being present.

[Maverick]

Pyro understands where I'm coming from it seems.  Can't see why it's that hard myself.

A good example are the Marines (USMC).  They prefer to have their own guys overhead providing close air rather than relying on the Navy.  Why?  Because they know that up above are fellow Marines who have a vested interest in the welfare of those below. 

I'm sorry, but I don't believe that to be the case of the UAV/UCAV drivers.  It's fairly hard to be involved/excited about the battle if you're sitting in an airconditioned shack somewhere else.

Sniper equipped B-1Bs still had real people flying them tho, unless they've developed a UAV B-1  (where's Greg?)

Regards,

Mav

[rickshaw]

A purpose built bomber would obviously be better but not everybody has access to B-52s and B-52s are getting rather long in the tooth and hence are more expensive to both fly (with their old engines) and maintain.  A modified civilian airliner would be cheaper to fly and maintain.   Obviously it would not be as manoeuvrable.  I was thinking along the lines of this with the 747



Or this with the A400 (in this case it is an AN74 which has a secondary bombing ability, carrying bombs which are dropped from the cargo ramp):



Or even like this:

[Maverick]

I'd hazard a guess that in some instances the 747 would be as equally expensive to maintain given the type's age.  As for B-52 availability, if we're talking about UCAVs, one would assume we are talking about the US in the first instance, although once again, a Tu-95, Tu-22 or Tu-26 would be able to carry a fairly prodigious load if we are thinking foreign.  B-1s are also becoming less important within the US arsenal and they can carry a healthy load of weapons and are 'young' in comparison to the Buff in a US application.

Cargo aircraft, in my opinion, are a poor choice for 'bombers' of any description.  The BLU-82 deployment seems to be perilously close to the engagement envelope of the MANPADS mentioned earlier and I doubt it has the 'speed' to avoid that particular problem, as the US have found out when their AC-130s have flown in daylight against those armed with them.

One frequently seems maritime conversions of civilian airliners and the like, but rarely bombers or even weapons platforms for stand-off applications.  I think that there's a reason for this, otherwise we'd have seen them in service already.

Regards,

Mav

[rickshaw]

Mav,  I wouldn't get too hung up about the particulars.  I'm more interested in talking about the principles of the concept.   Which ever platforms are chosen, they'd obviously have to fit the abilities and needs of which ever military force employs it.

[Maverick]

That goes without saying.  I'm sure that from a maintenance/reliability point of view, A400s, etc, etc are quite good.  My only concerns are the cost of those conversions and their vulnerability/hardiness within a military environment.

As for the concept, if a large bomber (or whatever) were beyond the threat envelope of the enemy (whether that be MANPADS, SAMs or guns), surely they could also be the carrier of the designation / acquisition equipment.  They would be too high (I would assume) to be heard or seen, as has been the case in current warzones and be able to 'be there' with both acquisition and weapons release and be capable of assessing the strike and engaging again if required.  All this in one platform rather than two.  Seems the obvious choice to me from a cost perspective, although once again, there is the issue of being invested in the battle below.

I sometimes wonder if the current fad with UAVs is trying to find roles for them regardless of the actual application or the logic of the employment.

Regards,

Mav

[jcf]

I doubt a bomber configured 747 (although I couldn't see an old design like it being developed to be honest -

Which is not as old as you think, about all the 747-8 and the 747-100 have in common is the designation and basic appearance.
The 747 has experienced several major redesigns over its life.