Re: The proposed aircraft for the Royal Navy's two new carriers part 2
- From: "Kevin Brooks" <brooksvmi@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 26 Feb 2006 23:01:55 -0500
"Jack Linthicum" <jacklinthicum@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1140978342.497728.185390@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Kevin Brooks wrote:
"Jack Linthicum" <jacklinthicum@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1140972855.031272.31370@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
<snip>
I still think a carrier-ized version of the A-10 or similar would be
more useful in the imagined litteral scenario. Fighters tend to want to
go fast, shoot on the run and miss the target.
Never heard of precision guided munitions or what they have done to the
world of CAS and BAI, huh Jack?
Brooks
Ever talk to a group of Marines who have been strafed and bombed by
some guy who thinks mach one is hovering?
No, but I do know of some Marines who got plastered by one of your vaunted
A-10's. Got some media attention at the time. There were also cases of
slow-movers engaging Bradleys, and British Warriors. What does that say
about your premise?
I don't remember the
precision guided munitions doing very much in the last Iraq conflict.
You have not been reading much then.
Do you have some performance numbers?
They worked nicely, which is why PGM's now account for a growing share of
the weapons dropped, and are edging dumb bombs completely out of the CAS/TIC
equation.
"In Operation Iraqi Freedom, coalition fighters and bombers flew about
20,700 sorties and struck
approximately 19,900 aim points, delivering 29,900 munitions of which 19,948
or 68 percent were of guided types (Precision Guided Munitions or PGMs) and
9,251 were unguided...approximately 58 percent of the weapons used against
the Iraqi army in the field would have been of guided types..."
But during the previous Operation Desert Storm: "Approximately 227,000 bombs
and missiles were expended
...and 14,825 of these were of guided types...about 165,000 munitions were
delivered against ground force and related targets in Desert Storm;
approximately 6,000 of these were precision weapons and 159,000 were
unguided."
Source for both of the above: www.comw.org/pda/fulltext/0309bm30.pdf
Let's see, about 58% of the weapons used against ground unit targets were
PGM's during OIF, versus about 4% during ODS...
"Similarly, Navy pilots launching air strikes from carriers in the
Persian
Gulf found that most of their missiles and bombs were not suitable for
close-air support in tight urban quarters."
Likely because the Navy lagged behind the USAF in terms of PGM fielding when
ODS occured (to which your rather odd choice of an "authority" has
apparently referred here). Had you bothered to look at more recent
conflicts, you would have found the Navy has done a pretty good job of
"catching up".
"Even Pentagon figures indicate that 10-15% of laser-guided munitions
don't land where intended, "
Interesting that you are staying away from JDAM, or the even more modern
Paveways that incorporate both GPS/inertial and laser guidance...
"This explains the frequent 'mistakes' in Afghanistan where bombs
landed far from any real target.
The only such "mistake" I recall reading about was where a ground observer
screwed up and sent own coords instead of target coords, resulting in a B-52
delivered (IIRC) munition killing some troops at the OP. Gee, I guess if he
had given the wrong target location to a warthog, everything would have just
turned out peachy, huh?
The complexity of GPS guided bombs
like JDAM, or the Navy 5-inch ERGM still under development, or the
proposed 155mm Excalibur will often lead to friendly fire casualties
which may be caused by any of these factors: a defective guidance
system;
Well gee, I guess the INS on your A-10 could go whacko too, right?
a guidance system damaged during transport or installation; an
incorrect GPS coordinate sent by the targeting system;
If you send bad coords you get bad results. Tell a FA battery firing dumb
ammo, or your vaunted A-10 jockey, to hit what is at grid AZ12345678 and he
is gonna hit at least the general area, so trying to parlay such into an
indictment of PGM's is not gonna wash.
and incorrect
GPS coordinate entered into the bomb;
Or, as we have seen with A-10's in the past, improper target ID by the pilot
of your vaunted slow-moving aircraft...so your point would be?
GPS signal interference from
nearby mountains, buildings, or solar flares;
Unfortunately, you and the "authority" you are quoting don't really
understand JDAM, do you? Its inertial system alone allows it a pretty good
CEP with *no* GPS inputs--the GPS just takes a darned accurate system
(compared to dumb munitions) and drops it into the 10 meter (or less)
basket. Ever wonder why there is a big push on to get PGM's integrated into
your pet A-10?
or GPS signal jamming.
Yeah, that worked REAL good for the Iraqis...so good that the jammer got
wiped by a JDAM! Got anymore gems like this?
So
if an aircraft drops a GPS guided bomb from several miles away, any
guidance problem may prove disastrous. Even if 90% work great, that
loose 10% may prove too dangerous".
http://www.geocities.com/operationalliedforces/
I got a real chuckle out of the article you cited; a quick look at the site
revealed we have a loose cannon with a severe bias against PGM's. Forget the
fact that ALL of the services are expanding their use of PGM's and trying to
"smarten up" previously dumb systems (to the point that the ubiquitous 2.75
inch rocket is getting a PGM makeover), right? Or that PGM's are eclipsing
the dumb systems in actual use by US forces? Where have you been hiding,
Jack?
Brooks
.
- References:
- The proposed aircraft for the Royal Navy's two new carriers part 2
- From: Christopher
- Re: The proposed aircraft for the Royal Navy's two new carriers part 2
- From: Jack Linthicum
- Re: The proposed aircraft for the Royal Navy's two new carriers part 2
- From: Kevin Brooks
- Re: The proposed aircraft for the Royal Navy's two new carriers part 2
- From: Jack Linthicum
- The proposed aircraft for the Royal Navy's two new carriers part 2
- Prev by Date: Re: Very small nuclear submarines?
- Next by Date: Re: Very small nuclear submarines?
- Previous by thread: Re: The proposed aircraft for the Royal Navy's two new carriers part 2
- Next by thread: Re: The proposed aircraft for the Royal Navy's two new carriers part 2
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|