Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!aplcen!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!att!cbnews!military From: munnari!gara.une.oz.au!pmorriso@uunet.UU.NET (Perry Morrison MATH) Newsgroups: sci.military Subject: Re: MANPADS (MAN Portable Air-Defence Systems - Lt.SAM's) Message-ID: <12401@cbnews.ATT.COM> Date: 18 Dec 89 04:55:32 GMT References: <12360@cbnews.ATT.COM> Sender: military@cbnews.ATT.COM Organization: University of New England, Armidale, Australia Lines: 122 Approved: military@att.att.com From: munnari!gara.une.oz.au!pmorriso@uunet.UU.NET (Perry Morrison MATH) > From: Brian Ross (bxr307@coombs.anu.oz) > munnari!gara.une.oz.au!pmorriso@uunet.UU.NET (Perry Morrison MATH) writes: > > >I believe that when the sam-7 was first used in vietnam, it was highly > >effective against helicopters (especially CH-47's) and that many choppers > >had a "stove-pipe" added to their exhaust so that the missile warhead would > >mostly destroy a piece of pipe rather than turbines, people etc. Same > > principle I guess. > > The "stove-pipes" applied in Vietnam where for a different > purpose. If you look closely at those applied to choppers they > actually curve upwards. This was an early anti-IR measure which > directed the exhaust into the rotor downwash in an effort to mix > it with cool air and mask it from IR guidance systems. Surely the effect would have been the same? The hottest piece of the chopper would have been the stove-pipe which would have taken the brunt of a hit. The rotor dissipation is new to me, but i'm sure you're right. > > Its interesting though that this discussion about MANPADS > has only spoken briefly about the other methods of guiding such a > missile to its target. The RBS-70 with its laser beam guidance > is an interesting example. It is perhaps the only real > "all-aspect" MANPADS and is totally unjammable. It is also the only > system fitted with an IFF (Identify Friend or Foe) system on the Would some of the other problems discussed with other manpads also apply here: short reaction time for low, fast aircraft, small warhead size (although isn't the Bofors design a 2 man team with pedastel mount, so presumably it could be a larger missile?). The all-aspect capability helps, but would its effectiveness as well as IFF be rather limited with low fast targets? > All the gunner has to do is keep is cross-hairs on the > target and the guidance impulses are transmitted up the laser > beam to the missile which then reacts to them (note the laser > beam does not illuminate the target. It is simply a means of > transmitting guidance messages to the missile). The system is > relatively simple and fool proof. In addition training costs are > reduced as the gunner only has to train with a laser beam, not a > missile. Simulator training costs are also reduced. What would be the time-of-flight for a typical missile shot? I recall that saggers (soviet wire guided anti-tank missiles) took 10-30 seconds and that this was a significant disincentive (to use an economic term) to gunners in the face of artillery and other forms of attack. In a co-ordinated force of arms attack would not the effectiveness of all manpads be limited while operating teams shelter from opposing fire? I know that many of these things can be operated remotely, but even so, it would take some gumption to stick your head up and keep a laser on target while shot and shell threaten to take it off. As I understand it, the initial surprise of the saggers in the Yom Kippur war were reversed when the Israelis co-ordinated armour and artillery attacks with infantry. > > We operate 75 F/A 18s and > >the most likely threat (from where?) is low level- squads of people hiding > >in the bush and blowing up the occasional thing.Are we really going to use > >F/A 18s to hit the odd truck/person? Sounds like a classic technology > >differential. > > Ah! Then you have never closely studied the Australian Government's > 1986 Dibb Report or 1987 White Paper on defence have you? The F/A18, like > the Navy have been tasked with attempting to defeat an enemy > before he can reach our shores. If he manages to do so then the > Army is to destroy him. In addition both papers called for the > establishment of two squadrons of light ground attack aircraft. > At the moment that has been placed on the back burner to fund > other acquisitions which are more pressing. However the lead > contenders are at the moment the BAE Hawk 100, the > Dornier/Aerospatiale Alpha Jet and the Pilatus PC9 trainer (which > has just entered service). If/when the aircraft enter service > the main task of the F/A18's will most probably become primarily > air-superiority (which it already is) and then maritime strike, > and finally CAS. The smaller, lighter and cheaper future LGA > will be employed as a CAS for missions within Australia. Where their > relatively low speed and long loiter times will be used to advantage for > the scenarios being planned against. Thanks for the fineprint, but I'm not sure that the argument is changed. Are even light attack aircraft (let alone F/A-18s) an economic option in the pursuit of small groups of people stretched out over thousands of kms? Factoring in costs: fuel, training, maintenance, potential losses against likely benefits- a couple of dozen dead people and a few vehicles, it doesn't seem to be an economic prospect. Mind you, I don't know how you do deal with geurilla tactics of this sort, except to go israeli and bomb their home ports/bases. Now that would be an appropriate task for an F/A-18. Perhaps the other tactic is Sth African- equally small groups of people roaming around and looking for these enemy bands. In any case, as previous postings have mentioned, the application of hi-tech to such a lo-tech scenario is probably not justified. For a higher level conflict where an enemy has landed in Australia in significant force, then numbers of light attack aircraft might be justified. In this case, there are likely to be sufficient targets and materiel to justify their application and associated risk. __ _______________________W_(Not Drowning...Waving!)___________________________ Perry Morrison Ph.D, V.D (and scar). SNAIL: Maths, Stats and Computing Science, UNE, Armidale, 2351, Australia. perrym@neumann.une.oz or pmorriso@gara.une.oz Ph:067 73 2302