Yes that's true Perplexed, a shoulder launched missile can be launched from "anywhere" potentially.
Just like a C-130 can "potentially" operate at altitudes outside the engagement zone of a shoulder launched missile...
Can you tell me how many shoulder launched SAM's are capable of engaging an aircraft above 15,000 feet?
And can you tell me how many C-130 Hercules fly BELOW 15,000 feet, especially KC-130J Harvest Hawks conducting CAS operations? That is the point of them requiring stand-off munitions...
In any case it's been demonstrated time and time again, that the main danger for an airlifter is in takeoff and landing. In such a case the weapon system they are carrying (ie: Griffin in this discussion) is entirely irrelevant to their survivability. Their approach patterns and EWSP are the main elements to their survivability, which is why anyone with the slightest interest in the survivability of their aircraft is putting directed infra-red counter-measure systems on them.
The stand-off weapon range is entirely relevant to their survivability over the battlefield though, especially compared to previous generation gunship weapons, such as the 7.62mm gatling guns, which admittedly provide a pretty show, but also require an aircraft to fly right into the middle of a potential threat's engagement envelope.
There has been some talk of putting a gun system on the Harvest Hawk, but the point is not to interrupt it's core missions of air-lifting and air-refuelling but to value add to an existing asset already present over the battlefield, so we'll see if that gun system is included. Unless pod mounted under a wing, I can't see how it won't impact on the aircraft's cargo carrying ability but we'll see.
Concern about supposed aircraft vulnerability is again being voiced. Well; battlefield survivability is more about how operations are conducted than anything else and there will always be inherent risk of losses in engaging an enemy at close quarters to provide accurate and cost-effective firepower, whatever the platforms.
A while back, a civvy 'expert' in Canberra opined to me that so-called attack helicopters like Tiger are too expensive to be operated within small arms range of opposing forces; yet that is essential to provide accurate high volume fire support in very close proximity to friendlies in pressing combat circumstances. The notion that high density 7.62mm weaponry is no longer appropriate is just nonsense as it is very devastating and importantly cost-effective compared with missilery (Hellfire about $75K per round?). Guns will always be necessary for adequate close air support.
Hitherto, MANPADS have not dominated battlefields like many theorists suppose. Sure, a few fixed wing gunships have been lost since the early 1960s; but overall, their achievements in multiple conflicts have been very impressive, also their ability to absorb battle damage. Few other platforms have comparable capacity for long range/endurance, all weather operations with suitable sensors, variable weaponry, high volume ordnance capacity. Consider their suitability for operations in the rugged regional wet tropics archipelago adjacent to Australia.
There are multiple derivations of the C-130 for Special Operations roles enabling versatility in hardware fits appropriate to the operating environment (a good overview here: http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/Harvest-Hawk-Aims-to-Arm-USMCs-KC-130J-Aerial-Tankers-05409/). There is also a Basler BT-67 (turbo DC3-Dakota) gunship version available for lower level conflict applications.
10 comments:
Make a great slow flying/low flying target for shoulder launched ground to air.
That's why there's the concept of a tacfloor!
The return of the Hilfsbomber. Even the vertical release method is German.
Is there nothing not invented in germany ofr Russia?Of course not.
Perplexed, that launcher is for the Raytheon Griffin air to surface missile. That missile has a stand-off range of 20k's when launched at altitude.
I'd love to see the shoulder fired missile that can reach 20k's.
Oh dear.
Silly me.
And Bonza, the miscreants only place ground to air "only" around a potential target. Think about it.
You sir are a dill.
Back to DT and your red pen.
Yes that's true Perplexed, a shoulder launched missile can be launched from "anywhere" potentially.
Just like a C-130 can "potentially" operate at altitudes outside the engagement zone of a shoulder launched missile...
Can you tell me how many shoulder launched SAM's are capable of engaging an aircraft above 15,000 feet?
And can you tell me how many C-130 Hercules fly BELOW 15,000 feet, especially KC-130J Harvest Hawks conducting CAS operations? That is the point of them requiring stand-off munitions...
In any case it's been demonstrated time and time again, that the main danger for an airlifter is in takeoff and landing. In such a case the weapon system they are carrying (ie: Griffin in this discussion) is entirely irrelevant to their survivability. Their approach patterns and EWSP are the main elements to their survivability, which is why anyone with the slightest interest in the survivability of their aircraft is putting directed infra-red counter-measure systems on them.
The stand-off weapon range is entirely relevant to their survivability over the battlefield though, especially compared to previous generation gunship weapons, such as the 7.62mm gatling guns, which admittedly provide a pretty show, but also require an aircraft to fly right into the middle of a potential threat's engagement envelope.
There has been some talk of putting a gun system on the Harvest Hawk, but the point is not to interrupt it's core missions of air-lifting and air-refuelling but to value add to an existing asset already present over the battlefield, so we'll see if that gun system is included. Unless pod mounted under a wing, I can't see how it won't impact on the aircraft's cargo carrying ability but we'll see.
Bonza , point taken.
Concern about supposed aircraft vulnerability is again being voiced. Well; battlefield survivability is more about how operations are conducted than anything else and there will always be inherent risk of losses in engaging an enemy at close quarters to provide accurate and cost-effective firepower, whatever the platforms.
A while back, a civvy 'expert' in Canberra opined to me that so-called attack helicopters like Tiger are too expensive to be operated within small arms range of opposing forces; yet that is essential to provide accurate high volume fire support in very close proximity to friendlies in pressing combat circumstances. The notion that high density 7.62mm weaponry is no longer appropriate is just nonsense as it is very devastating and importantly cost-effective compared with missilery (Hellfire about $75K per round?). Guns will always be necessary for adequate close air support.
Hitherto, MANPADS have not dominated battlefields like many theorists suppose. Sure, a few fixed wing gunships have been lost since the early 1960s; but overall, their achievements in multiple conflicts have been very impressive, also their ability to absorb battle damage. Few other platforms have comparable capacity for long range/endurance, all weather operations with suitable sensors, variable weaponry, high volume ordnance capacity. Consider their suitability for operations in the rugged regional wet tropics archipelago adjacent to Australia.
There are multiple derivations of the C-130 for Special Operations roles enabling versatility in hardware fits appropriate to the operating environment (a good overview here: http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/Harvest-Hawk-Aims-to-Arm-USMCs-KC-130J-Aerial-Tankers-05409/). There is also a Basler BT-67 (turbo DC3-Dakota) gunship version available for lower level conflict applications.
Post a Comment