Kevin Brooks wrote:
"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Is using helos for such missions outdated?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.
Not true. The Army fielded and used the SADARM artillery-fired AT
submunitions in Iraq last year. The 3ID(M) After Action report says they
fired over 120 rounds with 48 targets killed.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...-aar-jul03.pdf
(You'll have to search in the report)
That
*may* change with the new GMLRS (guided MLRS)...there was some talk
about fielding a smart submunition package for it and for ATACMS.
I think GMLRS is headed toward a unitary round more than smart subs. ATACSM
BAT may still show up, though.
The Army has also just issued a contract (now under protest) for manufacture
of a 120mm Precision-Guided Mortar Projectile, and is soliciting for an
off-the-shelf round to complement the depleted SADARM stocks.
--
Tom Schoene Replace "invalid" with "net" to e-mail
"If brave men and women never died, there would be nothing
special about bravery." -- Andy Rooney (attributed)