maddogdrivethru.net
http://maddogdrivethru.net/

Military stuff ... past and present.
http://maddogdrivethru.net/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=18058
Page 25 of 64

Author:  Anthropoid [ Sat Jan 13, 2018 4:18 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Military stuff ... past and present.

Interesting. Thanks Nef! All sounds sensible based on my very limited knowledge!

Author:  chijohnaok [ Sat Jan 13, 2018 9:22 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Military stuff ... past and present.

NefariousKoel wrote:
Anthropoid wrote:
So . . . mirage vs. sea harrier? Equally as potent? Not a an aircraft expert, but I ask because the dude commented that "they had the mirage with a higher top speed, 50% higher ceiling, and longer range missiles" or some such.


The Brit pilots did well not because of the Harrier, but for two reasons:

1) Because they were well-trained and experienced.

and

2) Because those Harriers had just received new models of all-aspect Sidewinder missiles. The Argentinian missiles would've only been able to fire from a rear aspect while the newer ones on the Harriers could fire from all-around. Big difference in firing envelope and ability to hit the target.


Harriers are absolutely not ideal for air-to-air engagements. The lack of afterburner is a huge deal, as is being able to go supersonic to a lesser extent. In WVR dogfights, the extra acceleration that an afterburner provides can give a massive advantage to pilots who know how to use that extra energy advantage.

You'll also note from the video that they describe all three kills coming from the Sidewinder missiles they fired. Those new versions allowed them to fire from all kinds of bad angles, which they previously hadn't been able to, and still get hits.

The Mirage III and Kfir (Israeli version sold to Argentina) were a bit older but still capable at the time. They were supersonic fighters with afterburners, and therefore posed a big threat to them. They were only every armed with similar infrared homing AtA missiles like those on the Harrier, so the pilot's suggestion that they were greatly out-ranged is an exaggeration. The Argentinian missiles also were much less capable than the RN's newly acquired ones when it came to tracking and hitting their targets.

Lastly, the pilot mentioned shooting Skyhawks. The A-4 Skyhawk was a subsonic (no afterburner) ground attack aircraft. Due to the limited amounts of pylons on those old birds, they were often only loaded with air-to-ground ordnance and no AtA missiles. Even if they did have Sidewinders, they would've been the older less capable ones.

I'd say it was a matter of the British pilots having more time and training in their aircraft, mixed with their missile capability advantage, which was the big decider in the Falklands air battles. Despite the limitations of the Harrier.


Sorry to the Harrier fans, but I always thought it was an overrated niche vanity piece. The only reason the Marines bought them was so they could fly a few off the short helo assault ships, but we would've been better off spending that money on more attack helos to put on them, for the same short-range ground support role, and let the Navy do their fixed wing bombing (with better payloads and numbers) from the CVs per usual. Misplaced spending IMO, but the USMC has often been bad about their equipment procurement.


I am no expert on the USMC, but it’s my understanding that they are very adamant on maintaining control over ground support (through air assets) for the mud Marines (Marine ground troops). They don’t like to be beholden to the Air Force or Navy for that (since ground support is not primary missions for USAF of Navy. Yes, they can use attack helos for ground support but that of course requires air superiority, otherwise the helos would be vulernable to enemy fighters. And air superiority normally requires fixed wing aircraft, hence the USMC’s desire to have fixed wing aircraft. And since mud Marines launch from amphibious assault ships those fixed wing aircraft need to be able to launch from those ships. And that is why the USMC was so big on getting Harriers and why they wanted the STOVL (short take off and vertical landing)version of the F-35 Lightening.

Author:  abradley [ Sun Jan 14, 2018 4:39 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Military stuff ... past and present.

Quote:
The Pentagon is developing drone SWARMS that could one day deploy more than 250 robots at a time

Pentagon is working to develop systems that would all for 'human-swarm' teams
Troops could receive assistance from unmanned aerial or ground vehicles
Systems will include a game-based architecture where the swarms can tested

By Cheyenne Macdonald For Dailymail.com

Published: 21:31 GMT, 25 October 2017 | Updated: 13:12 GMT, 26 October 2017

--Video--

--Video--

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/ ... obots.html

And this

And

Author:  abradley [ Sun Jan 14, 2018 6:52 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Military stuff ... past and present.

chijohnaok wrote:
I am no expert on the USMC, but it’s my understanding that they are very adamant on maintaining control over ground support (through air assets) for the mud Marines (Marine ground troops). They don’t like to be beholden to the Air Force or Navy for that (since ground support is not primary missions for USAF of Navy. Yes, they can use attack helos for ground support but that of course requires air superiority, otherwise the helos would be vulernable to enemy fighters. And air superiority normally requires fixed wing aircraft, hence the USMC’s desire to have fixed wing aircraft. And since mud Marines launch from amphibious assault ships those fixed wing aircraft need to be able to launch from those ships. And that is why the USMC was so big on getting Harriers and why they wanted the STOVL (short take off and vertical landing)version of the F-35 Lightening.
A couple of points from IIRC;

1. The Brits got the sidewinders secretly from the US, as the Brit fleet was steaming south they rendezvoused with US ships that transferred Sidewinders (plus training personnel {I assume}). The Brits had no prior experience w/Sidewinders.

The reason it was done secretly was Latin American temperament, didn't want to upset Latin countries.

2.Agree fully with your reasoning on Marines and Harriers, but I'll just add they are useful for land locked areas also. In fact most the Marine ads I saw showed them landing and taking off in short jungle strips. This was before 911 and Marines in Iraq/Afghanistan.

https://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/u-s-m ... 1794046061

Author:  NefariousKoel [ Sun Jan 14, 2018 12:41 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Military stuff ... past and present.

chijohnaok wrote:

I am no expert on the USMC, but it’s my understanding that they are very adamant on maintaining control over ground support (through air assets) for the mud Marines (Marine ground troops). They don’t like to be beholden to the Air Force or Navy for that (since ground support is not primary missions for USAF of Navy. Yes, they can use attack helos for ground support but that of course requires air superiority, otherwise the helos would be vulernable to enemy fighters. And air superiority normally requires fixed wing aircraft, hence the USMC’s desire to have fixed wing aircraft. And since mud Marines launch from amphibious assault ships those fixed wing aircraft need to be able to launch from those ships. And that is why the USMC was so big on getting Harriers and why they wanted the STOVL (short take off and vertical landing)version of the F-35 Lightening.


If the Marines wanted a fixed-wing aircraft to help with air superiority, then they didn't make all that great a choice in the Harrier.

They simply wanted a fixed-wing aircraft that they could fly from the small deck LHAs. The only production type that would feasibly fit, at the time, was the V/STOL Harrier.

The Marines already had fixed-wing aircraft. Since at least WW2. Plenty aircraft with "MARINES" painted on the side. Perceived problem was that they were often flown from Navy CVs, or based with involvement of same. Which meant the USMC didn't have complete control of home plate. I'm guessing it irked the control freak brass, along with the usual peppering of inter-service rivalry.

If a Navy carrier or two can't achieve air superiority with it's complement of aircraft much more suited to the air superiority role, a small deck helo assault ship isn't going to do so with a handful of sub-sonic ground attack Harriers armed with a few short-range AAMs.

The Marine purchase of Harriers was about getting more independent control over their air ops, and less so about filling a needed hole in the roster.

Author:  abradley [ Sun Jan 14, 2018 2:28 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Military stuff ... past and present.

On my post about Sidewinders and the Falklands, it may not have been spot on, might have mixed some 'French-Indian War' stuff into the Falklands War?
Old farts do that!

Here's some more on it:
Quote:
Crucial Falklands role played by US missiles

Nicholas Watt

Fri 6 Sep 2002 01.56 BST
First published on Fri 6 Sep 2002 01.56 BST

Shares
140
Margaret Thatcher would have lost the Falklands war in 1982 if America had failed to provide crucial missiles to bolster British air defences, according to an adviser to the former prime minister.

America, which angered the Thatcher government with its initially even-handed approach to the conflict, was believed to have provided little more than intelligence once Washington lost patience with the Argentinians.
(Continued)
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2002/sep ... ands.world
Addon
And there's this:
Quote:
Reagan Readied U.S. Warship for ’82 Falklands War
By: Sam LaGrone
June 27, 2012 4:00 AM • Updated: February 5, 2013 1:37 PM
reagan_and_maggie

President Ronald Reagan and Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher at the White House in 1981 The Reagan Library Archives

While publicly claiming neutrality between Argentina and the U.K. during the 1982 Falklands War, President Ronald Reagan’s administration had developed plans to loan a ship to the Royal Navy if it lost one of its aircraft carriers in the war, former U.S. Secretary of the Navy, John Lehman, told the U.S. Naval Institute on June 26.

Lehman and then Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger agreed to support U.K. Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher with the loan of the amphibious warship USS Iwo Jima, he said.
https://news.usni.org/2012/06/27/reagan ... ands-war-0

Author:  abradley [ Wed Jan 17, 2018 3:55 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Military stuff ... past and present.

If your in need of a nail ...


Author:  Anthropoid [ Wed Jan 17, 2018 5:16 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Military stuff ... past and present.

Watched "The Pacific," the HBO mini-series about the 1st Marines at Guadalcanal, New Britain, Peleliu, Iwo and Okinawa. 5/5, really well done. Captures the horror, putrescence and madness of it better than most war movies.

Literally binged watched the entire 10 episodes in one sitting! :P

Author:  jack t ripper [ Thu Jan 18, 2018 11:00 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Military stuff ... past and present.

Anthropoid wrote:
Watched "The Pacific," the HBO mini-series about the 1st Marines at Guadalcanal, New Britain, Peleliu, Iwo and Okinawa. 5/5, really well done. Captures the horror, putrescence and madness of it better than most war movies.

Literally binged watched the entire 10 episodes in one sitting! :P



The episode about Sgt Basilone at Guadalcanal was particularly fantastic

Author:  chijohnaok [ Sun Jan 21, 2018 4:35 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Military stuff ... past and present.

Image

US Army 1st Cavalry(provisional)
;)


https://www.strategypage.com/military_p ... 93619.aspx

Quote:
AFGHANISTAN 11.03.2001 Photo by Maj. Melody Faulkenberry United States Army Special Operations Command Original Horse Soldier Photos (U.S. Army Courtesy Photo

Page 25 of 64 All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/