|
Post by steel selachian on Dec 13, 2015 17:16:10 GMT -6
Friendly fire incidents are still possible today even with the sophisticated technology that we have . ....War is Hell as William Tecumseh Sherman said on 19 June 1879. A bomb, laser or no laser, is no ones friend once dropped. Point taken (especially given the recent incident in Afghanistan where an AC-130 blew the hell out of a hospital), but a stick of dumb bombs is exactly that - you're dropping a spread of unguided munitions to make sure one hits what you're actually aiming at. Some are going to go long, some are going to go short, some are going to go wide, and too bad for the rest of the neighborhood. I came across this when looking for any new info on November's Su-24 shootdown: www.janes.com/article/56295/russian-su-24m-communications-equipment-blamed-for-shootdownReal professional outfit. You send combat aircraft overseas without radios that can receive international emergency transmissions. Apparently the weapon used on the target was an AIM-9X, which means the Turkish F-16 was in visual range. Brilliant performance, boys - the Russians were flying along lost, deaf, dumb, and blind and the Turks either didn't take the time to ID the aircraft as Russian or just didn't give a damn.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Dec 13, 2015 20:08:46 GMT -6
Friendly fire incidents are still possible today even with the sophisticated technology that we have . ....War is Hell as William Tecumseh Sherman said on 19 June 1879. A bomb, laser or no laser, is no ones friend once dropped. Point taken (especially given the recent incident in Afghanistan where an AC-130 blew the hell out of a hospital), but a stick of dumb bombs is exactly that - you're dropping a spread of unguided munitions to make sure one hits what you're actually aiming at. Some are going to go long, some are going to go short, some are going to go wide, and too bad for the rest of the neighborhood. I came across this when looking for any new info on November's Su-24 shootdown: www.janes.com/article/56295/russian-su-24m-communications-equipment-blamed-for-shootdownReal professional outfit. You send combat aircraft overseas without radios that can receive international emergency transmissions. Apparently the weapon used on the target was an AIM-9X, which means the Turkish F-16 was in visual range. Brilliant performance, boys - the Russians were flying along lost, deaf, dumb, and blind and the Turks either didn't take the time to ID the aircraft as Russian or just didn't give a damn. The lack of proper radio equipment is amateurish, to be gentle about it. The range for an AIM-9X can be anything from .6 miles to 22 depending on the detection time and attitude so its possible it wasn't in visual range but still, under these operational circumstances, take the time to visually ID the aircraft. Again, amateurish. Update: www.nytimes.com/2015/12/14/world/europe/run-in-with-turkish-fishing-boat-angers-russian-military.html - This is really getting funny now, fishing boats against warships.....hmmm. Lookout for the rowboats and piper cubs, Russia.
|
|
|
Post by steel selachian on Dec 13, 2015 20:46:05 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Dec 13, 2015 21:03:51 GMT -6
OK but what about the rowboats.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Dec 14, 2015 12:38:47 GMT -6
www.quora.com/Why-is-Russia-using-dumb-bombs-in-Syria - Article's point about cost efficiency in bombing is sensible. If ISIS fighters are cheap to find and train, why waste expensive bombs on them except to prevent collateral damage and make neutral observers mad. If that doesn't bother you (apparently it does not bother the Russians) then why not.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Dec 14, 2015 18:12:22 GMT -6
Just some information about bombs and blast radius. The rate of attenuation of blast wave is proportional to the rate of expansion of the volume of the gases. It's inversely proportional to the cube of the distance from the blast center or 1/R3. If the bomb is detonated above ground, this can increase the effective distance. Fragmentation is the most effective types of bombs due to the effects of the blast merging with the bomb fragmentation. Circular error probability is equal to 50% of bombs falling within a target radius. In WWII, 9000 bombs dropped by 3000 aircraft had a CEP in feet of 3300. By Vietnam, that figure was 176 dropped by 44 aircraft with a CEP of 400. For PGM's, that CEP is now 40 feet for GPS/JDAM's and 25 feet for laser-guided bombs. As to the Russians, here is a good article comparing it 2008 performance in Georgia to Syria www.reuters.com/article/us-mideast-crisis-syria-russia-bombing-idUSKCN0SK1WF20151026
|
|
|
Post by steel selachian on Dec 14, 2015 21:41:19 GMT -6
Since we've been talking about air-intercept procedures, this should be worth a chuckle - and maybe a change of pants for the Cessna crew: www.bbc.com/news/magazine-35031313
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Dec 14, 2015 22:57:15 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Dec 16, 2015 15:50:04 GMT -6
This conflict between Turkey and Russia is historical, as you probably know. Turkey controls the Dardanelles which is the one access point for the Russians both militarily and commercially out of the Black Sea. They have also had disputes in the Balkans since the Ottoman Turks ruled for over 500 years in that area only losing that control with a series of poorly chosen wars prior to WW1. There have been twelve conflicts with Russia since 1568. The last was the Caucasus Campaign during WW1 in eastern Turkey by Ismail Enver ending in the defeat at the Battle of Sarikamish on January 2, 1915. This area was Armenia which was hotly contested for centuries. Both the Ottoman Turks and the Russian Empire dissolved by 1923. Interestingly, the Russian's have lost two empires with the breakup of the Soviet empire in the 1980's.
It would be beyond this thread or possibly any other thread to investigate this history, but I think it is interesting that there is a history of bad blood between these two nations that transcends NATO and the Syrian conflict. These two nations just don't like each other nor do they trust the other. Shoot first and pick out the bodies seems to be the modus operandi of any engagement between the Turks and the Russians.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Dec 17, 2015 8:42:46 GMT -6
Here is a link to an article written in 2011 about the "new" Turkish-Russian relationship - carnegieendowment.org/2011/08/19/turkey-and-russia-evolving-relationship. How do you reconcile what this article purports, with what is currently going on in Syria, with the shootdown of a Russian fighter. If the Russian economy is at its lowest point, as Putin has stated today, why do you cause more trouble with your largest trading partner- Turkey over a wayward poorly navigated aircraft. This quote is key, IMO -
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Dec 19, 2015 8:42:21 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Dec 20, 2015 15:25:43 GMT -6
I thought I would provide this link to a documentary on WW1 in the Middle East and the problems caused by demise of the Ottoman Turkish Empire and the agreements made by the Allied powers for the ruling of the Middle East. It is very interesting and informative. The primary book it is derived from, I have in my digital library: "A Peace to End All Peace" by David Fromkin. It shows the results of these agreements and our present day problems that resulted. www.youtube.com/watch?v=jP0evPEsc30
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Feb 26, 2016 12:57:02 GMT -6
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 19, 2016 16:52:02 GMT -6
Interesting... I wonder what's the real need of a dedicated bomber when tactical aircraft can do the same nowadays? Does the op cost eventually offset the R&D cost somehow?...
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on May 19, 2016 17:26:07 GMT -6
Interesting... I wonder what's the real need of a dedicated bomber when tactical aircraft can do the same nowadays? Does the op cost eventually offset the R&D cost somehow?... Yes, operating costs will offset the R&D costs over time. Long range strike capability in cases where there are no carriers and friendly bases. The B-36, B-47 and the B-52 essentially kept the Cold War from becoming hot. They can still keep small to medium size countries from getting frisky. This is a strategic asset that can be used by the President of the US to coerce a nation into backing down. It has worked many times. Plus..... they are really cool to watch take off and use to bomb nations back to the stone age... a quote from Curtis Lemay
|
|