|
Post by steel selachian on Apr 7, 2017 20:58:03 GMT -6
Rather than start a new thread, I figured I would redirect this one onto the discussion of yesterday's TLAM strikes on the Sharyat Air Base in Syria. To avoid getting into politics, perhaps we can evaluate it as an example of an attack on a large hardened airfield, the factors involved in striking such a target, and how best to effectively shut a hardened, dispersed airbase down for a prolonged period of time. www.cnn.com/2017/04/07/politics/new-satellite-imagery-of-bombed-syrian-base/index.htmlIf they were serious about destroying those hardened structures then they should have used BLU-118 or 116 weapons or the BLU-113 Super Penetrator. They could have delivered the weapons with B-2's or used AGM-130's to really do the job properly. Tomahawks cannot do this job. I am certain that the aircraft did not stay at that airbase for long. They landed, refueled and rearmed then dispersed within one hour. The birds were SU-22, very old and out of date aircraft that can only drop dumb bombs. This whole operation is a farce. If you really want to do the job, you need large penetrator weapons and develop a sustained air campaign against this base and all the bases for about seven to 10 days. As Curtis Lemay said, "we will bomb them back to the stone age." That was my initial reaction. Various reports have stated that between 14 and 20 aircraft were destroyed, but for all we know those were hangar queens the wouldn't have gotten into the air anyway unless someone set off 1000 lbs of HE under them. I do know that the following day Russian film crews showed two intact Su-22s sitting in an apparently undamaged HAS, and Reuters reported that aircraft were operating out of the base less than 24 hours after the strike. Reports on CNN stated that the base has at least 45-50 HAS; Tomahawks might have done the job but 59 missiles was just not enough warheads for that plus all the other potential targets. There's also the assertion that the Russians were given one hour's warning prior to the attack and that efforts were made to avoid casualties to Syrian personnel or hitting possible storage facilities for chemical weapons. That makes it more likely that a lot of stuff that properly should have been hit was purposely avoided.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Apr 7, 2017 21:12:11 GMT -6
If they were serious about destroying those hardened structures then they should have used BLU-118 or 116 weapons or the BLU-113 Super Penetrator. They could have delivered the weapons with B-2's or used AGM-130's to really do the job properly. Tomahawks cannot do this job. I am certain that the aircraft did not stay at that airbase for long. They landed, refueled and rearmed then dispersed within one hour. The birds were SU-22, very old and out of date aircraft that can only drop dumb bombs. This whole operation is a farce. If you really want to do the job, you need large penetrator weapons and develop a sustained air campaign against this base and all the bases for about seven to 10 days. As Curtis Lemay said, "we will bomb them back to the stone age." That was my initial reaction. Various reports have stated that between 14 and 20 aircraft were destroyed, but for all we know those were hangar queens the wouldn't have gotten into the air anyway unless someone set off 1000 lbs of HE under them. I do know that the following day Russian film crews showed two intact Su-22s sitting in an apparently undamaged HAS, and Reuters reported that aircraft were operating out of the base less than 24 hours after the strike. Reports on CNN stated that the base has at least 45-50 HAS; Tomahawks might have done the job but 59 missiles was just not enough warheads for that plus all the other potential targets. There's also the assertion that the Russians were given one hour's warning prior to the attack and that efforts were made to avoid casualties to Syrian personnel or hitting possible storage facilities for chemical weapons. That makes it more likely that a lot of stuff that properly should have been hit was purposely avoided. The Pentagon planners knew this was a knee jerk reaction that was designed to show the other side we meant business. It was not intended nor could it have been a final play. It served its purpose but it will take days for anything of value to be derived from it.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Apr 8, 2017 8:38:11 GMT -6
If you wish to destroy the opponents air capability, then you have to attack the enemy air system. This means destroying his command and control, logistical support and air bases along with the people involved in those activities. Destroying hardened aircraft shelters is time-consuming and can't be accomplished in one mission. The first target is the command and control facilities. You must find these C&C structures and destroy them with bunker buster bombs and kill everything in them or around them. This means human, animal etc. You can attack the facilities and resources needed to build and support air forces. Fuel sources, supply depots and ammo depots are necessary targets. The SOP is destroy all structures and everything alive in the area. This includes all leadership. All must be destroyed. The attacking forces can be a blend of stealth bombers, B-52's, B-1's; Attack helicopters, TLAM and SLAM's, drones and regular fighter bombers like the F-15E, F-16, F-18' s and F-35's if available. All the tools in the tool box must be applied. This type of action is not a game, everything must be destroyed along with occupants and participants. There is no mercy here. This is not RTW, it's real war and this is how you fight it. www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4388834/America-launches-airstrikes-Syria.html
|
|
|
Post by steel selachian on May 2, 2017 19:28:51 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on May 11, 2017 8:58:08 GMT -6
The one problem I have with this kind of article is its approach. We should not be concerned about how the media is informed of such missions, they are classified and it is important to protect all involved, whether it was a missile attack or a manned aircraft attack. There maybe boots on the ground attempting to do reconnaissance as to the missions effectiveness and increased media coverage can jeopardize their lives. Forget the media, protect all involved. The Russian's are just not that important.
|
|
|
Post by Enderminion on May 17, 2017 16:57:46 GMT -6
I question why two ships had 60 land attack missile from a total of 180ish launchers, in an area that can go hot at a moments notice
|
|
|
Post by steel selachian on May 17, 2017 18:51:30 GMT -6
I question why two ships had 60 land attack missile from a total of 180ish launchers, in an area that can go hot at a moments notice That would be because DDG-51s are not just tasked with land attack - their primary purpose is air defense; arguably land attack comes a distant second and then ASW. So looking at the possible weapons in the 96 cells on each ship, you would have SM-2/6 SAMs for ranged air defense (and a secondary antiship capability), SM-3 SAMs for knocking down ballistic missiles (and the DDG-51s we have based out of Rota in the Med are specifically there as BMD ships), RIM-162A ESSMs quad-packed in launch cells for short-range air defense, Tomahawks, and possibly a couple of RUM-139 ASROCs for ASW. The SAMs will have top priority because if you get into a situation where you need those, going "Winchester" is likely to result in you or a mission-critical asset taking a hit. When I used to edit my own loadouts for Fleet Command-NWP, I would give my DDG-51s 16-20 Tomahawks, 60+ cells with SAMs, and then maybe 4 cells set aside for ASROCs. I have no idea how the USN actually loads out its vessels, but for a high-threat scenario that seemed to be an appropriate balance for a vessel which could expect extensive air or missile attacks, occasionally strike land targets, and defend against submarine threats.
|
|
|
Post by Enderminion on May 18, 2017 5:27:33 GMT -6
I question why two ships had 60 land attack missile from a total of 180ish launchers, in an area that can go hot at a moments notice That would be because DDG-51s are not just tasked with land attack - their primary purpose is air defense; arguably land attack comes a distant second and then ASW. So looking at the possible weapons in the 96 cells on each ship, you would have SM-2/6 SAMs for ranged air defense (and a secondary antiship capability), SM-3 SAMs for knocking down ballistic missiles (and the DDG-51s we have based out of Rota in the Med are specifically there as BMD ships), RIM-162A ESSMs quad-packed in launch cells for short-range air defense, Tomahawks, and possibly a couple of RUM-139 ASROCs for ASW. The SAMs will have top priority because if you get into a situation where you need those, going "Winchester" is likely to result in you or a mission-critical asset taking a hit. When I used to edit my own loadouts for Fleet Command-NWP, I would give my DDG-51s 16-20 Tomahawks, 60+ cells with SAMs, and then maybe 4 cells set aside for ASROCs. I have no idea how the USN actually loads out its vessels, but for a high-threat scenario that seemed to be an appropriate balance for a vessel which could expect extensive air or missile attacks, occasionally strike land targets, and defend against submarine threats. still, like a third of their 96 cells were full of TLAMs, giveing them 66 cells for air defense and ASW (and nuclear as well as, soon, more shipkillers)
|
|
|
Post by steel selachian on Feb 12, 2018 21:32:07 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Feb 12, 2018 21:49:37 GMT -6
My guess would be that each individual bird, would be magnifluxed first, to find structural fatigue and those areas would be either repaired or the plane would be retired. If the structure passes that test, then the plane would be re-engine, tested and then returned to service. This is time consuming, but it would eliminate aircraft with structural problems. They would also replace old engine equipment with new digital to give better engine control and less maintenance. This would be wise, in my opinion. They have received communications upgrades, moving map displays, new generation avionics, radios and can now carry new and better weapons. My guess is the digital cockpit came along with all that. Just a note: the B-52 wing as the plane begins to take off, rises 13 feet. It's the neatest thing to watch. I was at March AFB when a scramble was sounded and watched the alert aircraft scramble at thirteen second intervals, each climbing out to port and starboard. Then everything went quiet.
|
|
|
Post by steel selachian on Feb 13, 2018 19:30:25 GMT -6
My guess would be that each individual bird, would be magnifluxed first, to find structural fatigue and those areas would be either repaired or the plane would be retired. If the structure passes that test, then the plane would be re-engine, tested and then returned to service. This is time consuming, but it would eliminate aircraft with structural problems. They would also replace old engine equipment with new digital to give better engine control and less maintenance. This would be wise, in my opinion. They have received communications upgrades, moving map displays, new generation avionics, radios and can now carry new and better weapons. My guess is the digital cockpit came along with all that. Just a note: the B-52 wing as the plane begins to take off, rises 13 feet. It's the neatest thing to watch. I was at March AFB when a scramble was sounded and watched the alert aircraft scramble at thirteen second intervals, each climbing out to port and starboard. Then everything went quiet. The issue is that the USAF only has 12 B-52H spares in Type 1000 storage at the Boneyard and it's not a quick process to reactivate them. Two years ago they pulled a unit out to replace a bomber that was written off due to a fire and it took about a year to get it combat-ready; I'm thinking that between now and 2050 age and mishaps are going to whittle down the 76 bombers currently in service. 90 years is a long time to be flying an aircraft regularly with heavy payloads. warisboring.com/i-ll-be-damned-these-boneyard-b-52s-can-still-fly/Another issue that I hadn't thought of, although it may become a moot point the way relations with Russia are going, is arms control. Right now we have 20 nuclear-capable B-2As and ~90 nuclear-capable B-52Hs, counting test aircraft and spares. The B-1Bs were stripped of their nuclear capability after the Cold War and are subject to annual Russian inspections to make sure we haven't added it back on. The B-21, which the USAF plans to buy 100 of, is supposed to be nuclear-capable. In order not to breach current arms control agreements, we would either have to cut back on other delivery systems such as ICBMs or SLBMs, remove the nuclear capability from the B-52s, develop separate nuclear and non-nuclear capable variants of the B-21 which would then be subject to arms control inspections, or throw out the New START agreement. www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/18464/usafs-new-bomber-roadmap-could-bust-up-key-arms-control-treaty-with-the-russians
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Feb 13, 2018 19:41:37 GMT -6
My guess would be that each individual bird, would be magnifluxed first, to find structural fatigue and those areas would be either repaired or the plane would be retired. If the structure passes that test, then the plane would be re-engine, tested and then returned to service. This is time consuming, but it would eliminate aircraft with structural problems. They would also replace old engine equipment with new digital to give better engine control and less maintenance. This would be wise, in my opinion. They have received communications upgrades, moving map displays, new generation avionics, radios and can now carry new and better weapons. My guess is the digital cockpit came along with all that. Just a note: the B-52 wing as the plane begins to take off, rises 13 feet. It's the neatest thing to watch. I was at March AFB when a scramble was sounded and watched the alert aircraft scramble at thirteen second intervals, each climbing out to port and starboard. Then everything went quiet. The issue is that the USAF only has 12 B-52H spares in Type 1000 storage at the Boneyard and it's not a quick process to reactivate them. Two years ago they pulled a unit out to replace a bomber that was written off due to a fire and it took about a year to get it combat-ready; I'm thinking that between now and 2050 age and mishaps are going to whittle down the 76 bombers currently in service. 90 years is a long time to be flying an aircraft regularly with heavy payloads. warisboring.com/i-ll-be-damned-these-boneyard-b-52s-can-still-fly/Another issue that I hadn't thought of, although it may become a moot point the way relations with Russia are going, is arms control. Right now we have 20 nuclear-capable B-2As and ~90 nuclear-capable B-52Hs, counting test aircraft and spares. The B-1Bs were stripped of their nuclear capability after the Cold War and are subject to annual Russian inspections to make sure we haven't added it back on. The B-21, which the USAF plans to buy 100 of, is supposed to be nuclear-capable. In order not to breach current arms control agreements, we would either have to cut back on other delivery systems such as ICBMs or SLBMs, remove the nuclear capability from the B-52s, develop separate nuclear and non-nuclear capable variants of the B-21 which would then be subject to arms control inspections, or throw out the New START agreement. www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/18464/usafs-new-bomber-roadmap-could-bust-up-key-arms-control-treaty-with-the-russians It does take a while to rebuild an aircraft that has been sitting for a long period of time even in the desert with a cocoon in place. But it is doable and they might be able to shorten the timespan necessary to perform the regeneration. As to the loss rate, I am not certain but the last loss was 2008 at Anderson AFB in Guam, so the fire issue is just one small issue. Before that, it was 1994, 1991 and 1988. That is not a bad lost rate. At that rate, and it can be prevented with regular maintenance and updates, I think the B-52 loss rate will just fine. As to the issue of the relations with Russia, who cares? Certainly not the Russians who have probably already broken or breached the current arms control agreements. I not a big fan of arms control agreements, especially with the Russki's. Keep giving their pilots and air crews some Vodka and they will just happy little Slav's.
|
|
|
Post by steel selachian on Jun 4, 2018 21:22:28 GMT -6
|
|