AC-130 Replacement Contemplated

"sid" wrote in message
om...
"Kevin Brooks" wrote in message
...


Look, we are NOT sending them into contested airspace, OK? Period.
There is that strange "OP-2E's" you keep ranting about... And again,
we
are not going to send these assets in against "undue risk".

Some guys whose remains finally made it home to Arlington recently
were certainly ordered into contested airspace in their ISR
assets...Even in the face of "undue risk". The job had to get done.
Thats what war-real war-is about Kevin.

Are you talking about the DASH-7 ARL that punched into a freakin'
mountainside? Geeze, just what kind of damage tolerance are you
demanding?

Hate to disappoint you but...No, I'm not talking about what happened
in Colombia at all. Laos actually. Since you are spouting all these
"facts", I thought you'd know all about it.

We have not lost an ARL in Laos.


Uhmmm...isn't S-400 the ABM derivitive? Which explains it longer
range--against targets waaay upstairs in their radar horizon at that
range?
As to the others....250 km is greater than either of them. Now, how
often
are you going to see those systems up near the FLOT? That's
right--pretty
much never. Talk about being an ATACMS magnet...

On your last point, its a matter of active concern. The radars and
targeting systems for these systems are bit tougher to counter.
Be honest, did you ever think the Serbs were capable of shooting down
that F-117 before it happend Kevin? Paycheck says no.

Hand it over. Anybody with have a brain knows that stealth is not completely
infallible, and that golden BB's do exist. The F-117 is a tough enough
target to acquire and hit--but it is not *impossible*.

Of course I don't expect you to open this:

http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/a...pietrucha.html
Everyone seems to understand the S-400's threat against
aircraft...except you.

Uhmmm...note that scenario has them facing F-15E's, not E-10's or ARL's?
Gee, wonder why... As to the realism of that particular threat...a single
ATACMS battery sitting in that same UAE territory can drill your S-400 site
each time the radar gets flipped on. Joint operations is a wonderful thing,
isn't it?

snip


Oh, gee whiz, what about those C-40's? And those aircraft specified to
go
into low threat areas? I guess you would discount the future use of CRAF
assets as well, right? What with all of those nasty super long range
AAM's...oops, that's right, they are just ghostware.

C-17s were expected to be in low threat areas...until recently. I
should have phrased my statement (which I'm sure you will misconstrue
as a rant) to say ALL aircraft involved in the active conduct of a
battle...even the ones that traditionally have operated on the
periphery.
For C-40s et all, thats where the changes to Part-25 (typo'd as 125
earlier)and MIL-STD-1530A come in. MANPADS is now a threat to ALL
transport category aircraft.

Oh, no! We have to scrap all of our airliners NOW! Build new ones that meet
your lofty criteria for survivability, right?

Speaking of CRAF(which isn't instituted right now BTW)... Even though
it wasn't a flight under DOD auspicies, DHL-and eventually LLoyds of
London-have paid dearly for operating in a hot war zone. By the Grace
of God only that crew and aircraft didn't end up in a smoking hole,
and Thank God too that it was empty and not carrying 300 or so of our
finest. Yes I know it was freight dog, so don't get all ****y about
that little "fact".

No, the "fact" you conveniently ignore is that it WAS a civil aircraft, it
WAS hit by a MANPADS, and...it did not fall apart! It actually *survived*.
Not a good example to support your "commercial airframes can't handle
modern combat requirements" sermon, now is it?

snip

I wonder what a S-400 warhead would do to a similarly engineered
EMB-145?

Probably the same thing it would do if it hit any *military* aircraft--blow
it to hell and back. You are trying to compare the effects of a MANPADS
strike (which we now know is survivable on the part of a commercial
aircraft, thanks again for the example) to that of a big honking warhead
like what is carried on the S-300/400 class weapons?!

Novator's product is a bit more than ghostware, but I don't want to
disturb any of your "facts".

Then tell us where it is--when is the first testflight? What kind of
guidance system will it use? Come on now--give us the specifics on this new
uber-weapon.


And, oh yes, I DO know what the "L" in ARL means...

I don't think you do, from the angle of your rants. It does NOT mean
"low
altitude", nor does it mean "low chance of surviving its mission".

LOL!! I worked for the operator that had the DASH-7s before the Army
got them(I've moved on since).
Regardless, the ACS won't have an "L" attached. Its expected to be"one
of the first to the fight".

I hate to tell you this, but the ARL also serves in that role--or did you
think we deployed them to Korea for grins and giggles? The key is *where* it
conducts its "fight"...yep, somewhere well to the rear of the FLOT, with due
regard to any potential threat systems that *could* cause it problems if it
moved into their envelope.

This has been loads of fun, but in the end it sounds a bit like that
fellow's one-man crusade against those eee-vil oil companies who stole his
kool-aid/gas formula that gives him 100 miles to the gallon, and can't
understand *why* the mainstream tech world just can't seem to grasp the
importance of his discovery... So adios, and have a nice day--we can revisit
this the day we start trying to penetrate the bad guys' IADS with those
ERJ's....

Brooks