Jump to content
tanknet.org

Socom Announces Plans To Buy 75 ‘Armed Overwatch’ Planes


Recommended Posts

Best defense vs point defense such as MANPADS is still flying high and fast enough to minimize exposure and to push missile at the disadvantageous position energy vise. Ofc, both are starkly contrasted with CAS requirements, so low and fast (A-10) or high and slow (drones) are compromises.

That makes it sound like a job for the AC-130. It could fly high, for a long time, and carry not only a lot of PGMs but also large powerful radar systems to identify ground targets and track them.
Link to post
Share on other sites

...That makes it sound like a job for the AC-130. It could fly high, for a long time, and carry not only a lot of PGMs but also large powerful radar systems to identify ground targets and track them.

 

Thing is, AC-130 is in the MANPADS engagement range, and IIRC one was lost in Desert Storm due the SA-7 or SA-14.

Link to post
Share on other sites

They were fitting IR supression systems to prop aircraft as long ago as the Vietnam war. It might actually be easier to IR suppress a turboprop than it is a jet engine. Imagine trying to IR supress an A10.

It makes no difference. As E5M said, already in Vietnam War, piston engined prop planes were dead meat vs SA-7 and it's horribly primitive seeker.

 

Advantage of a prop attack plane is that it is relatively inexpensive to maintain, deploy and employ and flying in co-operation with troops in ground, has high situational awareness. But you can't make it very survivable. Flying low & slow and using unguided weapons brings out the old adage of "When enemy is in range, so are you". You don't even need MANPADS, just heavy machine guns and light AA guns are threatening for this poorly armoured plane. If you start to adding things like advanced sensors, active countermeasure systems and smart weapons, it's no longer cheap but remains a single-role platform. And say what if it turns out your intel was wee bit out of date (see: Yemen) and enemy actually has some capable AD system like Tunguska or Crotale. With F-35, you're fairly safe. With A-10, you at least have a fighting chance. With a prop plane, you're deadest dodo of Deadonia.

I would see some value for that concept for Third world nations fighting bush wars against insurgents whom nobody is interested in arming with up-to-date weapons but for a major power, it seems like a niche of a niche role.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

...That makes it sound like a job for the AC-130. It could fly high, for a long time, and carry not only a lot of PGMs but also large powerful radar systems to identify ground targets and track them.

 

Thing is, AC-130 is in the MANPADS engagement range, and IIRC one was lost in Desert Storm due the SA-7 or SA-14.

 

Only when it's taking off and landing, yes? SA-7 and SA-14 reach a maximum altitude of 2300 meters, and AC-130 has a service ceiling of 12000 meters.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

...That makes it sound like a job for the AC-130. It could fly high, for a long time, and carry not only a lot of PGMs but also large powerful radar systems to identify ground targets and track them.

 

Thing is, AC-130 is in the MANPADS engagement range, and IIRC one was lost in Desert Storm due the SA-7 or SA-14.

 

Only when it's taking off and landing, yes? SA-7 and SA-14 reach a maximum altitude of 2300 meters, and AC-130 has a service ceiling of 12000 meters.

 

 

That's service ceiling, not the altitude at which they provide fire support, which will vary depending on the conditions and threat.

 

Since Vietnam, AA threats have pushed gunships higher and higher, requiring more powerful ordnance to remain effective at the slant ranges involved, which is partially why things like 7.62 miniguns and 20mm gatling guns have disappeared, giving way to 25mm, 40mm and 105mm. The latest variant uses 30mm and 105mm. In 2007 a study was done regarding the potential use of 120mm mortar, guided rounds would increase the engagement envelope and allow the aircraft to operate higher.

Link to post
Share on other sites

At MANPAD safe altitude, the only thing useful is the 105mm and Griffin/Viper Strike and similar weapons. Frankly, in a MANPADS/SHORAD world, something like a B52 hauling asstons of SDB or similar is the ticket.

 

You know a C-17 with some sort of cargo container installed missile box would be about right, if you need air delivered weapons. IMO/IME, ground based weapons have infinite loiter and you can sortie airplanes to support with CAS if you not forced into basing on the other side of the effing planet.

 

The oil blot method of COIN doesn't really work with ground forces dependent on air delivered fires, as I have been saying for a generation now. If it's not organic, you can not rely on it. S/F....Ken M

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

...That makes it sound like a job for the AC-130. It could fly high, for a long time, and carry not only a lot of PGMs but also large powerful radar systems to identify ground targets and track them.

 

Thing is, AC-130 is in the MANPADS engagement range, and IIRC one was lost in Desert Storm due the SA-7 or SA-14.

 

Only when it's taking off and landing, yes? SA-7 and SA-14 reach a maximum altitude of 2300 meters, and AC-130 has a service ceiling of 12000 meters.

 

That's service ceiling, not the altitude at which they provide fire support, which will vary depending on the conditions and threat.

 

Since Vietnam, AA threats have pushed gunships higher and higher, requiring more powerful ordnance to remain effective at the slant ranges involved, which is partially why things like 7.62 miniguns and 20mm gatling guns have disappeared, giving way to 25mm, 40mm and 105mm. The latest variant uses 30mm and 105mm. In 2007 a study was done regarding the potential use of 120mm mortar, guided rounds would increase the engagement envelope and allow the aircraft to operate higher.

 

Im sure I read somewhere they were even using repurposed copperhead rounds as a secondary weapon for Gunships, for just this reason. Dont know if it ever made into service, but it was certainly trialed.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

They were fitting IR supression systems to prop aircraft as long ago as the Vietnam war. It might actually be easier to IR suppress a turboprop than it is a jet engine. Imagine trying to IR supress an A10.

It makes no difference. As E5M said, already in Vietnam War, piston engined prop planes were dead meat vs SA-7 and it's horribly primitive seeker.

 

Advantage of a prop attack plane is that it is relatively inexpensive to maintain, deploy and employ and flying in co-operation with troops in ground, has high situational awareness. But you can't make it very survivable. Flying low & slow and using unguided weapons brings out the old adage of "When enemy is in range, so are you". You don't even need MANPADS, just heavy machine guns and light AA guns are threatening for this poorly armoured plane. If you start to adding things like advanced sensors, active countermeasure systems and smart weapons, it's no longer cheap but remains a single-role platform. And say what if it turns out your intel was wee bit out of date (see: Yemen) and enemy actually has some capable AD system like Tunguska or Crotale. With F-35, you're fairly safe. With A-10, you at least have a fighting chance. With a prop plane, you're deadest dodo of Deadonia.

I would see some value for that concept for Third world nations fighting bush wars against insurgents whom nobody is interested in arming with up-to-date weapons but for a major power, it seems like a niche of a niche role.

 

Not all of them. There was one example they modified with an exhaust the length of the fuselage with an IR supressor on the end. This was done for sound supression purposes, but according to the stealth warplanes book, it would also have made it near impossible to lock on a manpad, assuming they knew at night where to point it, it being so damn quiet.

 

This was the Lockheed YO3A.

img_0018-yo-3a-900x600.jpg

 

https://acesflyinghigh.wordpress.com/2016/08/27/lockheed-yo-3a-quiet-star-silence-was-its-only-protection/

Edited by Stuart Galbraith
Link to post
Share on other sites

SA-7's made things difficult for OV-10 and other small fixed wing aircraft towards the end of VN. I doubt improved MANPADS's have made things more favorable for the small planes. S/F....Ken M

 

But only because they had to come low to spot targets. With modern targeting pods, they do not have to.

Link to post
Share on other sites

They were fitting IR supression systems to prop aircraft as long ago as the Vietnam war. It might actually be easier to IR suppress a turboprop than it is a jet engine. Imagine trying to IR supress an A10.

LOL, IR suppressors for exhausts were mounted on bombers in WW2 already.

Those German IR detectors in night fighters did actually work, initially.

 

Modern IR missile guidance goes for the warmth of the fuselage rather than for engine heat, though. You'd need Peltier element IR camouflage for that - and even then you'd still not be able to match the background, just to rapidly change patterns..

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

They were fitting IR supression systems to prop aircraft as long ago as the Vietnam war. It might actually be easier to IR suppress a turboprop than it is a jet engine. Imagine trying to IR supress an A10.

LOL, IR suppressors for exhausts were mounted on bombers in WW2 already.

Those German IR detectors in night fighters did actually work, initially.

 

Modern IR missile guidance goes for the warmth of the fuselage rather than for engine heat, though. You'd need Peltier element IR camouflage for that - and even then you'd still not be able to match the background, just to rapidly change patterns..

 

I believe you will find those were flame dampers, not IR suppressors. If it was IR suppression that was the concern, then they probably wouldnt have been putting IR emitting lenses on the front of the Bombardiers Blister as a part of the IFF system to guard against Village Inn. Besides, I dont believe they had any reason to guard against a system whose range was only 200m.

Edited by Stuart Galbraith
Link to post
Share on other sites

Modern IR seekers, as has been stated, don't work the same way as older ones, being more the IR equivalent of optical seekers as opposed to earlier generation heat detectors.

 

In other words, they see the IR emissions of the target at "normal" temperatures, rather than needing to see something that is at 1000s of degrees.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

...That makes it sound like a job for the AC-130. It could fly high, for a long time, and carry not only a lot of PGMs but also large powerful radar systems to identify ground targets and track them.

 

Thing is, AC-130 is in the MANPADS engagement range, and IIRC one was lost in Desert Storm due the SA-7 or SA-14.

 

Only when it's taking off and landing, yes? SA-7 and SA-14 reach a maximum altitude of 2300 meters, and AC-130 has a service ceiling of 12000 meters.

 

That's service ceiling, not the altitude at which they provide fire support, which will vary depending on the conditions and threat.

 

Since Vietnam, AA threats have pushed gunships higher and higher, requiring more powerful ordnance to remain effective at the slant ranges involved, which is partially why things like 7.62 miniguns and 20mm gatling guns have disappeared, giving way to 25mm, 40mm and 105mm. The latest variant uses 30mm and 105mm. In 2007 a study was done regarding the potential use of 120mm mortar, guided rounds would increase the engagement envelope and allow the aircraft to operate higher.

 

Im sure I read somewhere they were even using repurposed copperhead rounds as a secondary weapon for Gunships, for just this reason. Dont know if it ever made into service, but it was certainly trialed.

 

 

Wasn't copperhead for 155 mm and the gunships carry 105 mm. Up gunning from 105 mm to 155 mm would be a huge amount of weight and recoil.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...