A-4 / A-7 Question

"Grantland" wrote in message
...
(Harry Andreas) wrote:

In article , Joe Osman
wrote:
snip
While doing CAS from afar doesn't have the dramatic flair of the good
ol' days, it certainly is just as effective. Won't make very good
footage for some future war movie though.

That's all well and good if the technology works, but if it
fails the results can be a lot nastier than when the
ordnance was being pointed in the proper direction until the
last second with the pilot there to make the decision to
release or not. And if the enemy defeats or spoofs the
terchnology we should still have the old fashioned
capability around, especially in an expeditionary context
where troops on the ground need "flying artillery".

The technology is a lot harder to defeat than most people realize.

The alternative is to spend a LOT of time training for dumb bomb
deliveries that you'll probably never do: a waste to resources when
you could be training for something more useful.
Or not train for dumb bomb deliveries enough, and if you have to do it,
not be competent enough which is a risk all it's own.

I think you need to bet on the odds, which are strongly in favor of
the technology, especially since it's been demonstrated in service.

until someone detonates an EMP nukes(s) in high orbit. No doubt
there's a coupla candidates already up there, waiting. There goes
your $trillion+ investment.. tsk tsk

Grantland

--
Harry Andreas
Engineering raconteur

..... and you can bet your last eggroll that the Red Chinese have got one of
their top thinktanks devising ways to circumvent/destroy the U.S. digital
infrastructure - Gulf War I & II have taught them and the world the way to
defang the U.S. across the board is to take out every one of our
networks/uplinks & downlinks. If they ever go head to head with us in the
future it will have to be their number one priority if they want to stand a
chance.

"Dudhorse" wrote:

.... and you can bet your last eggroll that the Red Chinese have got one of
their top thinktanks devising ways to circumvent/destroy the U.S. digital
infrastructure - Gulf War I & II have taught them and the world the way to
defang the U.S. across the board is to take out every one of our
networks/uplinks & downlinks. If they ever go head to head with us in the
future it will have to be their number one priority if they want to stand a
chance.

Tue BUT: "Red" Chinese? No, Hong Kong (and, less so, Taiwan) showed
the "Reds" how errant they were. When they complete their program
they will be the most capitalist country on earth. Way beyond
high-tax, Socialist Amerika - Hong Kong writ gigantic. Taiwan
(peacefully, voluntarily) included. To *effect* this transformation
in an orderly manner, however, they need to stay in power. Hence the
Red hats. And nobody (in China) could care. Just keep up the 10%
growth.

So China is (should be) an ally, not a foe. Just like a fading
British Empire embracing the (virile, not-yet-corrupt) United States.
China is the future. Amerika is history.

Grantland

"Doug "Woody" and Erin Beal" wrote
"Grantland" wrote:

(Harry Andreas) wrote:

Joe Osman wrote:
snip
While doing CAS from afar doesn't have the dramatic flair of
the good
ol' days, it certainly is just as effective. Won't make very
good
footage for some future war movie though.

That's all well and good if the technology works, but if it
fails the results can be a lot nastier than when the
ordnance was being pointed in the proper direction until the
last second with the pilot there to make the decision to
release or not. And if the enemy defeats or spoofs the
terchnology we should still have the old fashioned
capability around, especially in an expeditionary context
where troops on the ground need "flying artillery".

The technology is a lot harder to defeat than most people
realize.

The alternative is to spend a LOT of time training for dumb bomb
deliveries that you'll probably never do: a waste to resources
when
you could be training for something more useful.
Or not train for dumb bomb deliveries enough, and if you have to
do it,
not be competent enough which is a risk all it's own.

I think you need to bet on the odds, which are strongly in favor
of
the technology, especially since it's been demonstrated in
service.

until someone detonates an EMP nukes(s) in high orbit. No doubt
there's a coupla candidates already up there, waiting. There goes
your $trillion+ investment.. tsk tsk


Right because terrorists can drive U-Haul trucks into space.

Since GPS Sats are thoroughly radiation hardened, it don't matter
much. It's impossible to take out GPS service with a single weapon of
any kind, any where. You_might_degrade system accuracy some places,
some times but that's about it. The Air Force is active in increasing
the hardness of the GPS system through increased coding gain, radiated
power and AJ antennas for the weapons. I don't see much payoff and do
see a lot of costs is maintaining the ability to deliver CAS fires
with dumb munitions. Better to proliferate the ways of guiding smart
munitions (mm-wave seekers for instance). The most fruitful avenue to
interfering with the New Age CAS is in network communications attacks
to slow down, corrupt or block those automated 9-line messages.

On 10/11/03 6:07 AM, in article ,
"Paul Austin" wrote:


"Doug "Woody" and Erin Beal" wrote
"Grantland" wrote:

(Harry Andreas) wrote:

Joe Osman wrote:
snip
While doing CAS from afar doesn't have the dramatic flair of
the good
ol' days, it certainly is just as effective. Won't make very
good
footage for some future war movie though.

That's all well and good if the technology works, but if it
fails the results can be a lot nastier than when the
ordnance was being pointed in the proper direction until the
last second with the pilot there to make the decision to
release or not. And if the enemy defeats or spoofs the
terchnology we should still have the old fashioned
capability around, especially in an expeditionary context
where troops on the ground need "flying artillery".

The technology is a lot harder to defeat than most people
realize.

The alternative is to spend a LOT of time training for dumb bomb
deliveries that you'll probably never do: a waste to resources
when
you could be training for something more useful.
Or not train for dumb bomb deliveries enough, and if you have to
do it,
not be competent enough which is a risk all it's own.

I think you need to bet on the odds, which are strongly in favor
of
the technology, especially since it's been demonstrated in
service.

until someone detonates an EMP nukes(s) in high orbit. No doubt
there's a coupla candidates already up there, waiting. There goes
your $trillion+ investment.. tsk tsk


Right because terrorists can drive U-Haul trucks into space.

Since GPS Sats are thoroughly radiation hardened, it don't matter
much. It's impossible to take out GPS service with a single weapon of
any kind, any where. You_might_degrade system accuracy some places,
some times but that's about it. The Air Force is active in increasing
the hardness of the GPS system through increased coding gain, radiated
power and AJ antennas for the weapons. I don't see much payoff and do
see a lot of costs is maintaining the ability to deliver CAS fires
with dumb munitions. Better to proliferate the ways of guiding smart
munitions (mm-wave seekers for instance). The most fruitful avenue to
interfering with the New Age CAS is in network communications attacks
to slow down, corrupt or block those automated 9-line messages.



Love the automate 9-line concept. Never actually used it. All that is
usually required is a set of target coordinates and a friendly location.
The rest of the 9-line WRT JDAM CAS is useless. What I'm saying is that a
network attack may slow the process down--but even then only slightly. All
it really means is that the pilot better have a blank kneeboard card.

--Woody

Woody,

Sad - well maybe.

I can't think of a single shipmate who relished flying into combat with an
unreliable weapons system. Catshot-lovin' inertials; nonintuitive knobology
(all of us "old" B/Ns managed to cycle steering in memory point at some
embarrassing juncture); AMTI circuitry that classified freeway overpasses as
"movers" and Whack-A-Mole circuit-breaker management techniques (most often
performed in unusual attitudes) were all aspects of the A-6A that added
greatly to risk - especially when combined with a mission of dubious value.
(And there were many such missions during the VN conflict.)

But such was life in a first-generation technology.

I've always loved the idea of driving as many of the smarts as may be
feasible from the manned delivery vehicle into the unmanned weapon. Humans
shouldn't go into harm's way unless there is no better solution.

Besides - smart weapons make lousy POWs.

Owl sends.
--
Mike Kanze

436 Greenbrier Road
Half Moon Bay, California 94019-2259
USA

650-726-7890

"The best political metaphor from Arnold Schwarzenegger's movie career is
not his three 'Terminator' roles. Rather, it's 'Kindergarten Cop.' In the
California legislature, Ah-nold will be taking on the largest
publicly-funded day-care center west of Washington, DC."

- Mike Kanze


"Doug "Woody" and Erin Beal" wrote in message
...
On 10/9/03 9:41 AM, in article , "Mike
Kanze" wrote:

All excellent discussion and very good points, but what do our
ground-pounding "customers" think of the effectiveness of current CAS
doctrine?

Owl,

The customers LOVE it. Even now, they pass coords via secure. 6 minutes
later, there are warheads on foreheads. I think there's mutual agreement
that its both safer and more effective.

In effect, your old B/N job got replaced by GPS.

--Woody

P.S. I know. It's sad for me too.

Sparky,

Just saw something on the news about a B-52 doing CAS. 100 plus GPS bombs
dropped from 30,000 feet.

Sea story. Overheard a tale during the early 1970s of B-52s hitting the
range with a one-pass mass release of as many MK-76s as one of those
critters could carry. If true, musta been a sight for the ages.

BUFFDRVR: true, or just a another good Happy Hour tale?

--
Mike Kanze

436 Greenbrier Road
Half Moon Bay, California 94019-2259
USA

650-726-7890

"The best political metaphor from Arnold Schwarzenegger's movie career is
not his three 'Terminator' roles. Rather, it's 'Kindergarten Cop.' In the
California legislature, Ah-nold will be taking on the largest
publicly-funded day-care center west of Washington, DC."

- Mike Kanze


"Elmshoot" wrote in message
...
[snipped]

Doug \"Woody\" and Erin Beal wrote:

snip

Thanks, Guy. 18 JDAMs is the number. I couldn't remember it before.

You're welcome. However, they were only carrying 12 rather than 18 up to now, as
they can only carry 6 x 2,000 lb. bombs on each pylon, rather than 9 smaller bombs.
AFAIK the Buffs didn't use Mk. 83 1,000 lbers (only the navy/ marines seem to use
the Mk. 83), so they were all Mk.84/BLU-109-based weapons. The champion JDAM
carrier up til now has been the B-1B, as it can (and has) carry twenty-four 2,000
lb. class JDAMs internally. the B-1 crew that bombed that building in Baghdad
trying to kill Saddam dropped a total of 21 out of 24 during the course of that
mission; only 4 were aimed at Saddam, with 9 and 8 going down on other targets
located elsewhere.

Guy

In article , wrote:

(Harry Andreas) wrote:

In article , Joe Osman
wrote:
snip
While doing CAS from afar doesn't have the dramatic flair of the good
ol' days, it certainly is just as effective. Won't make very good
footage for some future war movie though.

That's all well and good if the technology works, but if it
fails the results can be a lot nastier than when the
ordnance was being pointed in the proper direction until the
last second with the pilot there to make the decision to
release or not. And if the enemy defeats or spoofs the
terchnology we should still have the old fashioned
capability around, especially in an expeditionary context
where troops on the ground need "flying artillery".

The technology is a lot harder to defeat than most people realize.

The alternative is to spend a LOT of time training for dumb bomb
deliveries that you'll probably never do: a waste to resources when
you could be training for something more useful.
Or not train for dumb bomb deliveries enough, and if you have to do it,
not be competent enough which is a risk all it's own.

I think you need to bet on the odds, which are strongly in favor of
the technology, especially since it's been demonstrated in service.

until someone detonates an EMP nukes(s) in high orbit. No doubt
there's a coupla candidates already up there, waiting. There goes
your $trillion+ investment.. tsk tsk

....and the odds of that are?

Like I said, you got to bet on the odds.

--
Harry Andreas
Engineering raconteur

(Harry Andreas) wrote in message ...
SNIP
The alternative is to spend a LOT of time training for dumb bomb
deliveries that you'll probably never do: a waste to resources when
you could be training for something more useful.
Or not train for dumb bomb deliveries enough, and if you have to do it,
not be competent enough which is a risk all it's own.
SNIP
I understand (never having flown the thing) an F16 with its ring laser
gyro INS, laser/radar(?) ranging and continuous computing bomb
computer can achieve quite amazing accuracy in dumb dive bombing,
circa 10m accuracies. This accuracy is obtained with substantially
less practice than with the old fixed reticle and 'that looks about
right' (TLAR) we had to use in the F4 and earlier jets. The A7 with
its continuous predicting bomb sight was also easier to use and more
accurate that the depressed reticle sight. Where the depressed reticle
really gave fits was with the first bomb dropped in high winds - an
aim-off point of 600 feet is damn hard to eyeball over targets without
that big white known-dimension circle around them. That also means in
one pass-haul ass areas with no known 'yardstick' down there hits
become more a matter of luck with the old TLAR and dumb sight. Yeah,
we had dive-toss, radar ranging and the INS with a bombing computer.
But one 'no release' in a hot area kind of puts you off dive toss
until you get back to Avon park FL. :/
Walt BJ

On 10/23/03 8:22 PM, in article
, "WaltBJ"
wrote:

(Harry Andreas) wrote in message
...
SNIP
The alternative is to spend a LOT of time training for dumb bomb
deliveries that you'll probably never do: a waste to resources when
you could be training for something more useful.
Or not train for dumb bomb deliveries enough, and if you have to do it,
not be competent enough which is a risk all it's own.
SNIP
I understand (never having flown the thing) an F16 with its ring laser
gyro INS, laser/radar(?) ranging and continuous computing bomb
computer can achieve quite amazing accuracy in dumb dive bombing,
circa 10m accuracies. This accuracy is obtained with substantially
less practice than with the old fixed reticle and 'that looks about
right' (TLAR) we had to use in the F4 and earlier jets. The A7 with
its continuous predicting bomb sight was also easier to use and more
accurate that the depressed reticle sight. Where the depressed reticle
really gave fits was with the first bomb dropped in high winds - an
aim-off point of 600 feet is damn hard to eyeball over targets without
that big white known-dimension circle around them. That also means in
one pass-haul ass areas with no known 'yardstick' down there hits
become more a matter of luck with the old TLAR and dumb sight. Yeah,
we had dive-toss, radar ranging and the INS with a bombing computer.
But one 'no release' in a hot area kind of puts you off dive toss
until you get back to Avon park FL. :/
Walt BJ

You're bringing back my A-6 memories. I have a lot of time on iron sights.
Don't miss it.

All valid points. Substantially less time training to dumb bomb deliveries
when it's so easy to get a good hit.

--Woody