"M" *@*.* wrote in message ...
Kevin Brooks
I always thought the emphasis on radar stealth was off the mark.

Consider missions like the one at the start of Desert Storm, where
(iirc) Apaches sneaked in low at night and destroyed Iraqi early
warning radars. Obviously, radar stealth seems useful for such
missions.

Actually, from what little I understand, that scenario is one where LO tech
would be of the least usefulness. Early warning radars work on the longer
end of the wavelength, and LO is least effective against EW systems; ISTR
reading that stealthy platforms can rather often pop up on such systems. But
the LO is better oriented towards the shorter wavelength acquisition and
tracking systems. If I have that all wrong, sombody else can feel free to
correct that view.


So, a few stupid(?) questions: Am I wrong about radar
stealth being quite useful in addition to terrain masking?
Is using helos for such missions outdated? Are such deep
missions a marginal issue nowadays, or was it so already
back then? Or is it that the US is focusing its capability
on tackling third rate opponents with minimal own-losses,
rendering the issue of radar-based airdefences largely irrelevant?

I don't think LO in the radar spectrum is nearly as important for a helo
that is able to use terrain masking as would be reducing the IR and sound
signatures. As to going deep, the aviators were quite enamored with that
philosophy ever since the Apache arrived on the scene; when we played mixed
force simulations, where our division had both Cobras and Apaches in hand,
we invariably dedicated the Apaches to going deep (where they often took
heavier losses) while we retained the Cobras for over-the-shoulder shooting
and as our last-ditch AT reserve. The experience during OIF with the 11th
AVN BDE deep attack does point out the dangers inherent in trying to use
rotary assets in that role, but beware drawing to great a conclusion, as
that mission may have had some planning problems, and it was executed
knowingly at greater risk without SEAD support.


without the benefit of the normal SEAD support from your own
arty assets is extremely risky."

More naive questions: Is artillery SEAD really seen as a
requirement for attack helo missions within the envelope
of enemy short-range airdefences?

In my expereince at the DIV level, and watching the corps planning cycle
up-close, yes it usually is included in the deep strike plan.

If so, what about operating
out of arty range?

Unlikely--MLRS is now reaching out to a bit over 70 klicks, and when firing
ATACMS it can go as deep as some 300 klicks. During exercises V Corps
usually kept a significant part of the ATACMS supply under its thumb for use
in both SEAD and against OPFOR deep attack (i.e., rocket) systems.

Or without having arty on theatre in the
first place (eg much of Afghanistan, esp early on)?

Which is why we are now fielding HIMARS, the HEMTT truck based "light MLRS",
with a six pack in the rack versus the two six packs available in the
tracked version. You can also do the JAAT routine, where the attack helos
work with fixed wing CAS.

And, finally,
if artillery is that effective for SEAD, wouldn't it also be
effective against the targets of the attack helos?

Nope. You are using the arty deep in the SEAD role against area targets. The
attack helos are going there because they can pick out and kill the specific
systems you are going after. If they are MBT's, then the current crop of
arty systems (other than Copperhead, which needs a designator and rather
good battlefield conditions) can't reliably kill them.

Couldn't
smart AT-MP submunitions, or whatever, then do all the job
of the AH's, and more safely?

How many smart AT packages have we fielded for the arty systems? None, other
than Copperhead, which has a mixed record. We have tested some, and gotten
to the almost-ready-to-field stage, but not actually fielded them. That
*may* change with the new GMLRS (guided MLRS)...there was some talk about
fielding a smart submunition package for it and for ATACMS.


Moreover, while MLRS can saturate fairly large areas with
submunitions, and will probably ruin the day of any
manpad operator in the target area, one can't possibly
use arty to saturate all the potential locations of
air-defences. At least not with low-level ingress/eggress.
A guy with a manpad can hide easily - in the worst
case he'll be lurking just next to your base, like has
been the case in some Russian helo losses in Chechenya.

So you do a good mission analysis using the currently available planning
software. Plot the ingress and egress in and check it against line-of-sight
and AD weapons ranges; a good GIS can then shde in the areas where your path
intersects the LOS from what terrain. You then either adjust your route, or
plan for SEAD fires on that terrain.


And what if the enemy has useful counter battery capability
that limits arty SEAD support? Use AH's to take it out, but...

I don't see us facing any bad guys who can overmatch our counterbattery, and
the ever important firefinder radars, capabilities.

Brooks

g