Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Air to surface/Air to air missiles

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    They would fire practise rounds for, guess what, practise and near time-expired rounds for the same reason. A concrete filled training rocket, fitted with a small pyrotechnic makes a very nice smoke cloud for spotting purposes and a convincing hole in a target hulk or even in the earth. They also cost considerably less to buy in the first place.
    regards
    GttC

    Comment


    • #17
      'Seen an RAF live fire exercise on Salisbury plain[I think] back in prehistoric times[the '70's] where a lot of live ordnance was expended on a load of expired trucks. One of the many RAF heads in evidence told us that it was time expired stuff being got rid of, there was a lot of media presence[cine cameras etc] so it's possible it's somewhere on you tube, but ain't found it yet...
      "We will hold out until our last bullet is spent. Could do with some whiskey"
      Radio transmission, siege of Jadotville DR Congo. September 1961.
      Illegitimi non carborundum

      Comment


      • #18
        The 70mm rockets, they look small, what type of damage would they do to a target.? Like for example if one hit a car would the car still pass the NCT (Even if it was left into Nanger road test center with a 50 Euro note stuck to the dash?)

        Comment


        • #19
          The target will always have looked and performed better before the impact.

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by sofa View Post
            The 70mm rockets, they look small, what type of damage would they do to a target.? Like for example if one hit a car would the car still pass the NCT (Even if it was left into Nanger road test center with a 50 Euro note stuck to the dash?)
            The kenitic energy alone would collapse the body, there wouldn't be enough car left to stick the 50 euro note in.......
            "We will hold out until our last bullet is spent. Could do with some whiskey"
            Radio transmission, siege of Jadotville DR Congo. September 1961.
            Illegitimi non carborundum

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by sofa View Post
              The 70mm rockets, they look small, what type of damage would they do to a target.?
              certainly the modern ones, the CRV-7's for example, can use AP warheads that will go through the armour of T-72's and Hardened Aircraft Shelters. the standard HE warhead would turn a car inside out or take the roof off a house.

              they are also more accurate than most guns fitted to aircraft...

              Comment


              • #22
                that's because a rocket is recoilless and has fins for guidance and stability, whereas a bullet is fired from a vibrating machine-gun, itself attached to a flexing, vibrating wing. Both weapons create "beaten zones" when they arrive on target.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Thanks all for your replies.

                  So, can I reasonably summarise this as follows:

                  We spent 60m on an aircraft which other states have exploited to it's full capacity, and with the addition of guided weapons and associated tech, gives a more then credible air-to-air capability against aircraft operating at similar or lower speeds, and a similar capability against ground targets, yet we arm it with 1940s/1950's style weapons? And no thought was ever given to exploiting it's true capabilities? When pretty much the exact opposite approach was taken with most other kit used in the DF? It really does seem a scandal to have spent so much to have achieved so little, perhaps we should have bought the last of the Swiss vampires instead?!?!?

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by Tempest View Post
                    Thanks all for your replies.

                    So, can I reasonably summarise this as follows:

                    We spent 60m on an aircraft which other states have exploited to it's full capacity, and with the addition of guided weapons and associated tech, gives a more then credible air-to-air capability against aircraft operating at similar or lower speeds, and a similar capability against ground targets, yet we arm it with 1940s/1950's style weapons? And no thought was ever given to exploiting it's true capabilities? When pretty much the exact opposite approach was taken with most other kit used in the DF? It really does seem a scandal to have spent so much to have achieved so little, perhaps we should have bought the last of the Swiss vampires instead?!?!?
                    Do any countries have guided AGMs or AAMs on PC9s?

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by DeV View Post
                      Do any countries have guided AGMs or AAMs on PC9s?
                      difficult question to answer - no one other first world states uses it as their main offensive/defensive platform, so while they do use it for 'basic' weapons training, they see little point plumbing the aircraft for guided weapons when they have other platforms available to do the guided weapons training role.

                      there is no doubt however that the PC-9M can use guided weapons, or that the AT-6, a derivative of the PC-9M, is specifically built and marketed as a guided weapons carrying aircraft that is intended to be used in low-intensity combat operations.

                      there would be no technical challenge in plumbing, fitting, carrying, or firing AIM-9X, Hellfire/Brimstone, Paveway, Starstreak etc.. and there is no performance barrier to operating it as a low-intensity warfare asset - it has the power/range to carry a meaningfull weapons load and do it well.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by ropebag View Post
                        there would be no technical challenge in plumbing, fitting, carrying, or firing AIM-9X, Hellfire/Brimstone, Paveway, Starstreak etc.. and there is no performance barrier to operating it as a low-intensity warfare asset - it has the power/range to carry a meaningfull weapons load and do it well.
                        the only "technical challenge" is convincing politicians/civil servants to authorize it!!

                        Most of whom still operate under the premise that "neutrality" affords us some sort of protective force field over the entire country like the Death Star had before Luke and Han messed it up

                        An army is power. Its entire purpose is to coerce others. This power can not be used carelessly or recklessly. This power can do great harm. We have seen more suffering than any man should ever see, and if there is going to be an end to it, it must be an end that justifies the cost. Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by ropebag View Post
                          difficult question to answer - no one other first world states uses it as their main offensive/defensive platform, so while they do use it for 'basic' weapons training, they see little point plumbing the aircraft for guided weapons when they have other platforms available to do the guided weapons training role.

                          there is no doubt however that the PC-9M can use guided weapons, or that the AT-6, a derivative of the PC-9M, is specifically built and marketed as a guided weapons carrying aircraft that is intended to be used in low-intensity combat operations.

                          there would be no technical challenge in plumbing, fitting, carrying, or firing AIM-9X, Hellfire/Brimstone, Paveway, Starstreak etc.. and there is no performance barrier to operating it as a low-intensity warfare asset - it has the power/range to carry a meaningfull weapons load and do it well.
                          The challenge would more likely be integration and certification

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by DeV View Post
                            The challenge would more likely be integration and certification
                            The challenge would be justifying the integration of €150,000+ per round weapons on a platform that no matter how much you tart up is not a viable platform for deployment. It is a training platform that you only want to employ in a wartime role as a backs to the wall last resort option. Never bring a knife to a gunfight etc.

                            If you want a COIN platform, build something from the ground up as a COIN platform. Modify a Training aircraft to have COIN capability and you end up with neither.

                            To look at the bigger picture, never ever deploy fixed wing abroad without a definite CSAR capability which itself would be a more worthwhile and achievable capability for the IAC to aspire to and is much more typical of the niche type overseas capability we see the broader DF working towards. A hell of a lot easier to sell to Joe Public too.

                            Those "low cost" laser guided 2.75inch rocket rounds people are trying to sell, has anyone pointed out yet that they will cost in the region of $20,000 each? A waste of money on a non deployable platform.
                            Last edited by Jetjock; 19 April 2014, 15:47.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              JJ, I didn't have either overseas or COIN in mind (neither very realistic), but was specifically thinking of about the only operational role they undertake, policing air exclusion zones/CAP. I wonder would the yanks donate what was required in order to enhance this role when their presidents drop by?

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by Tempest View Post
                                JJ, I didn't have either overseas or COIN in mind (neither very realistic), but was specifically thinking of about the only operational role they undertake, policing air exclusion zones/CAP. I wonder would the yanks donate what was required in order to enhance this role when their presidents drop by?

                                The main threat in that senario is from light planes, as airlines have totally overhauled their security procedures, in that case the machine guns are adequate.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X