Forum: Air Power

This is intended for general knowledge only, I am not asking for any sensible information. If any of the question belongs to sensible information, then you can just not reply.
Cannons:
In OEF and OIF, F-16s, FA-18s sometimes engaged enemy targets with 20mm strafing runs. I wonder if a F-15A/C could do the same if requested. I suppose the air superiority pilots are not trained for that, but I wonder if the jet enables this option (with a dedicated HUD mode for example).
Unguided bombs:
Is the US still using any unguided bomb in combat? Is there any training with them?
Unguided rockets:
Do they see any military usage by NATO fixed wing air assets? Are the A-10 pilots still practicing with them?
Guided bombs
Is it a normal practice engaging an armored vehicle type of target with a GBU-10 like weapon? I am referring to some craters I saw in Libyan photos next to destroyed Libyan equipment.
Apart for cluster munitions against concentrated ground forces, I was assuming the most cost effective guided weapon for CAS or Battlefield Air Interdiction is the GBU-12. I don’t see any reason why a mission planner should arm a fighter jet that is searching for those targets with anything bigger than GBU-12s.
AIM-9
I read some articles speaking about AIM-9s that have a limited use in air-to-ground. I know some testing on the AIM-9X was done to enable it to engage soft skinned ground moving targets. Is it a real option?
AGM-65 , Brimstone, AGM-114 Hellfire
Here are three battlefield air launched tactical missiles. I assume their main role is to engage tactical vehicles or positions that are defended by battlefield antiaircraft guns or missiles, or the antiaircraft systems themselves.
Why wasn’t the HELLFIRE ever integrated with attack jets like the A-10, F-16 or FA-18? Thinking a bit about it, the Brimstone is a HELLFIRE size missile that can be fired by jets too. Is there any particular reason why the RAF developed the Brimstone instead of integrating the HELLFIRE to their jets while it had already access to AGM-114s? I am just thinking about a HELLFIRE armed A-10…
AGM-88 and other antiradar missiles
Are they an actual option in antiship warfare? I know the ship is constantly moving and it could turn off the radar evading the direct threat posed by these missiles. But in this way, the simple presence of antiradar missiles enables other antiship missiles to engage their target without any active radar guided defense.
Do they have any usage against an enemy AWACS or airborne radar?
Anyway they should be able to directly engage a moving transmitting target since it was reported that a B-52G was damaged by a AGM-88 that locked on the bomber's self-defense tail turret radar.
SAMs
Do they have any usage in surface to surface warfare? I know the SA-2 could be used as a battlefield missile and that most of the naval SAMs can be launched against surface ships.

F-16.net Sponsor

marco9 wrote:

This is intended for general knowledge only, I am not asking for any sensible information. If any of the question belongs to sensible information, then you can just not reply.
Cannons:
In OEF and OIF, F-16s, FA-18s sometimes engaged enemy targets with 20mm strafing runs. I wonder if a F-15A/C could do the same if requested. I suppose the air superiority pilots are not trained for that, but I wonder if the jet enables this option (with a dedicated HUD mode for example).

Yes is would be possible for F-15A/C aircraft to strafe with their 20mm. Specially since they carry nearly double the ammunition of the F-16. However, in operations in Afghanistan and Iraq, even Libya at the moment, this would be the only mission for the F-15. It would be a waste of resources if you brought that A/C into the fight with its logistics footprint just to strafe. The F-16 and F-18 also have their A2G capabilities making them a better option for the fight.

marco9

Quote:

Is the US still using any unguided bomb in combat? Is there any training with them?

i'd be no too wonder, if no. but, frankly to say, it's fatal mistake: to maintain "smart" weapon along big war, natural/tech disasters can be very hard or even absolutely impossible. lm-like guys have made the myth that smartty toys make perfect superiority Two Cents

Sark,

F-15A/C have an A/G system, though out of use for well over a decade. It has not been tested by maintenance and some may actually have components removed fromt the aircraft. But Initially there was a gravity bomb system available at each of the pylons.

launcherman wrote:

Sark,

F-15A/C have an A/G system, though out of use for well over a decade. It has not been tested by maintenance and some may actually have components removed fromt the aircraft. But Initially there was a gravity bomb system available at each of the pylons.

by the way, launcherman, have the laser guided missiles IFF system?

They'd be dumb bombs. No electrical umbilical to connect them to the aircraft. Then no software for communication. I talked with some Eagle drivers a few years ago regarding strafing and they really don't like pointing the nose toward the ground for that long of a time. Understandable I guess. I guess you could put a Strike eagle guy in there and drop some iron but he might get lonely without his WSO

marco9 wrote:

Unguided bombs:
Is the US still using any unguided bomb in combat? Is there any training with them?
Unguided rockets:
Do they see any military usage by NATO fixed wing air assets? Are the A-10 pilots still practicing with them?
Guided bombs
Is it a normal practice engaging an armored vehicle type of target with a GBU-10 like weapon? I am referring to some craters I saw in Libyan photos next to destroyed Libyan equipment.
Apart for cluster munitions against concentrated ground forces, I was assuming the most cost effective guided weapon for CAS or Battlefield Air Interdiction is the GBU-12. I don’t see any reason why a mission planner should arm a fighter jet that is searching for those targets with anything bigger than GBU-12s.
SAMs
Do they have any usage in surface to surface warfare? I know the SA-2 could be used as a battlefield missile and that most of the naval SAMs can be launched against surface ships.

Unguided Bombs
Yes.

Unguided Rockets
Yes. I'm unsure if they're used offensively as a kinetic weapon, or for target-marking with white phosphorous. I've seen numerous pictures of A-10Cs with a single LAU-131 rocket pod.

Guided Bombs
Yes. GBU-12s and GBU-31s (2000lb JDAM) are certainly used. The heavyweight JDAMs are also more cost-effective for the weight of explosive on target.

SAMs

No. No land-based SAM in use with the US has any designed surface-to-surface capability. I suppose the FIM-92 Stinger could be fired, unguided, at surface targets, but the warhead will be minimally effective against any armor. Things like the Patriot just CAN'T be fired at ground targets.

-SP

The only SAM that can hit ground targets, IIRC, is the Canadian ADATS.

SpudmanWP wrote:

The only SAM that can hit ground targets, IIRC, is the Canadian ADATS.

Actually I am sure the Standard naval SAM is an effective air-to-ship option. They used in in the Gulf against Iranian warships at least in the Eighties... and it was radar guided in those cases.

In my mind it's perfect to detroy the superstructure of the ship where most of the elettronics is located. Then the firing ship could approch the target to sink it with a combination of naval gunfire and torpedos. If the target ship is a major combatant like a cruiser, a high speed SAM pointed to the superstructure is a perfect option to avoid any defending SAM or CIWS that could intercept a normal anti-ship missile. After the target is blinded, the firing ship can fire a salvo of cruise missiles to finish it off or again naval gunfire and torpedos.

The SA-2 had a secondary use as a battlefield missile. The SA-5 could have the same.

Regarding the bombs, I don't see why a CAS aircraft should employ a GBU-31, 2000 lbs against a lone stationary tank. I think a 500 lbs bomb (either GBU-12 or GBU-38 ) should be enough.

Nice to hear the F-15A/Cs have thier A/G mode even for strafing runs. I know that Israel used the A/G feature at least once in the '80ies to strike the PLO HQ in Tunis, but I always thought it was a Israel special modification to the aircraft for that particular mission.

Regarding unguided bombs, I am pretty sure that if any major war would happen, it would be quite impossible to limit the strikes using guided weapons. I think that unguided cheap bombs should still be a valid option.

Good catch (which is why I prefaced it with IIRC) with the Standard SAM. They even made a few ARM versions.
http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/m-66.html

marco9 wrote:

Actually I am sure the Standard naval SAM is an effective air-to-ship option. They used in in the Gulf against Iranian warships at least in the Eighties... and it was radar guided in those cases.

In my mind it's perfect to detroy the superstructure of the ship where most of the elettronics is located. Then the firing ship could approch the target to sink it with a combination of naval gunfire and torpedos. If the target ship is a major combatant like a cruiser, a high speed SAM pointed to the superstructure is a perfect option to avoid any defending SAM or CIWS that could intercept a normal anti-ship missile. After the target is blinded, the firing ship can fire a salvo of cruise missiles to finish it off or again naval gunfire and torpedos.

SM-2s were the predominant ASuW Weapon on US Navy warships (the fleet's main ASuW ability was still CV aircraft with Walleyes/ iron bombs) from just after Vietnam, until the introduction of the Harpoon, and the SM-2's ability to hit surface targets was one of its main improvements over the SM-1. SM-2s and SM-6s are the most numerous missiles on USN Cruisers and destroyers, often using over 50% of the VLS cells out of 90/96/122 missiles, depending on the ship, compared to just 8 Harpoons, and even then the newer Arleigh Burke Flight IIA destroyers don't carry any Harpoons at all. In the 70s and 80s, the ships with Mk 26 launchers like the Virginias and Kidd class ships usually carried about 80-100 Standards, with the rest of the magazine holding ASROCs. With the majority of likely warship targets being small corvettes and frigates, like those (formerly) used by the Libyans, and similar countries, a Standard is a good option as it is faster and cheaper than a Harpoon. Just like you said, in the Cold War, SM-2s would be used to overwhelm a Russian surface combatant's defenses and cripple its sensors and weapons, leaving it vulnerable to carrier aircraft or Harpoons.
Also, this is interesting and more on topic: http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/m-165.html A never procured concept for a land attack SM-2.

Forum: Air Power

Questions about aerial warfare weapons