SEAD
-
nah, i don't visit gun webbies one, me no armchair people. i speak fro mwat i know, if i dunno anything abt it, i don't read up via internet cos its often biased and personal touch is definitely better than watever hk or wat webby claims.Originally posted by Johnston:He meant, after some checking up at Hkpro.com or something similar, that the main difference between PSG1 and MSG90 is their cost.
Among other things.
Which are:
Nato standard scope mount, instead of permanent Hensoldt scope.
ambidextrous safety
different lower reciever (Not civilian legal, WHY)
Ambidextrous magazine release.
Yes, and a Revolutionary war era Muzzleloader rifle is also a rifle.
If you took one and tried to shoot it out with a SAF rifleman, he could pump his whole webbing load of magazines at you before you could load and fire.
the psg-1 scope accounts for most of the price difference i guess... most SAF snipers would be more familiar with the 'T' crosshair due to the ssg being in use since dunno when rather than the vertical/horizontal crosshair. SPF will be more familiar with vertical/hori cos they don't use ssg... -
actually the spec ops in GW1 inserted ahead of the Ah64's and F117's to "light" up the targets making it easier for the SEAD aircrafts to take them outOriginally posted by Johnston:Are you aware what the definition of SHORAD and V-SHORAD AD systems are?
These range from:
20mm Vulcan/ZSU-23-4 SPAAG
Chapparal SP SAM system
Manportable SAMs such as the Stinger
Towed AA guns such as the ZSU-23-2
Vehicle mounted AA guns
Vehicle mounted short range SAMs.
We are not asking the artillery to attack the systems guarding the enemy arty assets, but the systems supporting the armor/infantry.
Last i saw, SAF FH-88 guns had a maximum range of 39 klicks (with ERFB-BB rounds of course). Did you think we'd be using Primuses and going up to engage them with direct fire?
I would not be saying "Arty SEAD missions" if such missions have not previously been fired, and recorded, and told about in lessons/field manuals.
Can you tell me, if artillery can be tasked to support a advance against armor, why it cannot be tasked to fire missions against the identified AA assets?
Finally:
Using SpecOps team cost more time !
Time, is what the attacker has a surfeit of.
We do not know now, if US SOCOM had inserted teams into Iraq prior to the first Iraq Gulf War.
But we DO know they had teams in country before the Second Gulf War.
We can presume that among other things, they were conducting reconnaisance and identifying key targets such as command complexes.
Who is to say that just before H-hour, they were ordered to disable any known radar complexes by firing a couple .50 HEAP rounds at said radar dish?
Or a missile or two.
The point im making now is that SEAD is a combined effort, everybody can do a part. Even the grunt.
As for the guy who asked if Punching a hole in to a radar wld disable it....well it would render it useless because you'd get quite alot of ghost returns.Those dishes are "tuned" to sent a signal to the focus point a slight change in shape would change that point and thus give u some ghost returns.... -
Yes.Originally posted by |-|05|:actually the spec ops in GW1 inserted ahead of the Ah64's and F117's to "light" up the targets making it easier for the SEAD aircrafts to take them out
As for the guy who asked if Punching a hole in to a radar wld disable it....well it would render it useless because you'd get quite alot of ghost returns.Those dishes are "tuned" to sent a signal to the focus point a slight change in shape would change that point and thus give u some ghost returns....
So... these are SEAD aircrafts.
F-117A's
AH-64A's
MH-53J's
Hey, none of them can break mach one or carry spiffy gear to track said radar.
So if the aforementioned team can Id the target, why not put a couple of rounds through it too. -
it'd be easier to LD them man.....they enemy wont even knowOriginally posted by Johnston:Yes.
So... these are SEAD aircrafts.
F-117A's
AH-64A's
MH-53J's
Hey, none of them can break mach one or carry spiffy gear to track said radar.
So if the aforementioned team can Id the target, why not put a couple of rounds through it too.
-
First thing , VSHORADs is usually classified as having range of less than 10km.
SHORADs is of range of 10~20km, and medium range SAM is of range 20~75km and lastly long range SAM is of range beyond 75km.
The purpose of having SEAD a/c is not just to destroy enemy ADs but actually to clear the way for a/c to destroy the strategic installation of the enemy like the C&C centre, communication , power station etc which will be likely to be deep inside enemy territory guided by all kind of SAM from VSHORADs to even up to long range SAM.
At the same time, it will be also heavily guarded by even up to a bde level of troop & armoured asset.
So it will be likely to be out of range of any arty, any SF strike is more likely to be doomed.
The only practical way is by mean of SEAD a/c, maneuverists' methodology.
That is how Iraq surrendered in GW1, after practically all their strategic installations were been attacked, making the Iraqi's C&C impotent. -
Clear you still don't understand enough about AD and artilleries.Originally posted by Johnston:Are you aware what the definition of SHORAD and V-SHORAD AD systems are?
These range from:
20mm Vulcan/ZSU-23-4 SPAAG
Chapparal SP SAM system
Manportable SAMs such as the Stinger
Towed AA guns such as the ZSU-23-2
Vehicle mounted AA guns
Vehicle mounted short range SAMs.
We are not asking the artillery to attack the systems guarding the enemy arty assets, but the systems supporting the armor/infantry.
Last i saw, SAF FH-88 guns had a maximum range of 39 klicks (with ERFB-BB rounds of course). Did you think we'd be using Primuses and going up to engage them with direct fire?
I would not be saying "Arty SEAD missions" if such missions have not previously been fired, and recorded, and told about in lessons/field manuals.
Can you tell me, if artillery can be tasked to support a advance against armor, why it cannot be tasked to fire missions against the identified AA assets?
Finally:
Using SpecOps team cost more time !
Time, is what the attacker has a surfeit of.
We do not know now, if US SOCOM had inserted teams into Iraq prior to the first Iraq Gulf War.
But we DO know they had teams in country before the Second Gulf War.
We can presume that among other things, they were conducting reconnaisance and identifying key targets such as command complexes.
Who is to say that just before H-hour, they were ordered to disable any known radar complexes by firing a couple .50 HEAP rounds at said radar dish?
Or a missile or two.
The point im making now is that SEAD is a combined effort, everybody can do a part. Even the grunt.
Are you aware what the definition of SHORAD and V-SHORAD AD systems are? You can name the few system, but are you aware of the range ! These are very short range system, that mean they are deployed with the units they are defensing and protected by that unit.
Those system you mention are all amoured and tracked, why ? they are tracked to be able to keep up with armor unit and armoured because they can withstand light arms and artilleries attack. Even if you use FH-88, unless a direct hit or special any armour rounds, you cannot do serious damage. Also, once you open up, counter artilleries will go after your FH-88s. Using Artilleries for Sead is not say never, but in most general cases, you don't waste your artillery that way.
Next SpecOps again !!! What you think they super human again ! The SpecOps will still lay low and call in SEAD planes to take out the ADs first then guide the other planes to take out the amour units.
It is easiler to send one plane ahead, so enemy will switch on radar to engage it while the next take it out. That will soon leave enemy without ADs and other planes take out amour units. -
Wild Weasel planes have been around for years.They are vital because no army has a huge pool of SOF troops who can be sent in with an acceptable casualty/success buffer vis-a-vis actual results of enemy ADA units destroyed.
-
You see, SOF troops are trained to complete their mission despite of heavy enemy fire, thick surveillence while being outnumbered, and you have to agree that almost all of their mission (regardless it is to sabotage AA or enemy communication devices) will be under such dangerous characteristics. So if by ur saying that no army can afford the high casualty to low result rate incurred on the SOF, then must as well remove the SOF as a whole as their missions are too dangerous and almost all of their missions can be fulfilled by the strike planes. Correct?Originally posted by LazerLordz:Wild Weasel planes have been around for years.They are vital because no army has a huge pool of SOF troops who can be sent in with an acceptable casualty/success buffer vis-a-vis actual results of enemy ADA units destroyed.
So in a nutshell due to ur statement, all SOF sabotage mission can be conducted by strike planes in a safer fashion, we shall shrink our SOF and eliminate all sabotage courses within their wing. It make no sense to me.
But the fact is that all SOF troops are trained to sabotage their enemy despite the danger, so why cant sabotage air defence? -
You can suppress long range missiles by suppressing their radar or most efficiently, destroying the pieces but for VSHORADs, there is nothing you can do to suppress it than to destroy it. For example in the case of SAF, eventhough u suppressed the P-Star, you are most likely still within the range of the RBS during the main strike (not refering to the SEAD strike) and the firer with a Mk1 eyeball can still have pretty much chance to shoot you down.Originally posted by gary1910:The purpose of having SEAD a/c is not just to destroy enemy ADs but actually to clear the way for a/c to destroy the strategic installation of the enemy like the C&C centre, communication , power station etc which will be likely to be deep inside enemy territory guided by all kind of SAM from VSHORADs to even up to long range SAM.
In most modern air strikes, it is much better now to suppress the long range missile system, dominate the air and then launch the air strike at high attitude to avoid VSHORADs which are hard to evade when they are coming in masses and hard to detect as while. With current guidance technology, it is possible to launch a strike above the clouds, not even seeing ur enemy. But of course, i will also go for long range precision strikes. -
I'm not saying we should move SOF away from sabotage.But it is unwise to toally depend on them to perform the tasks.Plan B is always needed, and sometimes both must run parallel.Originally posted by foxtrout8:You see, SOF troops are trained to complete their mission despite of heavy enemy fire, thick surveillence while being outnumbered, and you have to agree that almost all of their mission (regardless it is to sabotage AA or enemy communication devices) will be under such dangerous characteristics. So if by ur saying that no army can afford the high casualty to low result rate incurred on the SOF, then must as well remove the SOF as a whole as their missions are too dangerous and almost all of their missions can be fulfilled by the strike planes. Correct?
So in a nutshell due to ur statement, all SOF sabotage mission can be conducted by strike planes in a safer fashion, we shall shrink our SOF and eliminate all sabotage courses within their wing. It make no sense to me.
But the fact is that all SOF troops are trained to sabotage their enemy despite the danger, so why cant sabotage air defence? -
Yes i agree with you. Pardon me if i misquote you in the previous post.Originally posted by LazerLordz:I'm not saying we should move SOF away from sabotage.But it is unwise to toally depend on them to perform the tasks.Plan B is always needed, and sometimes both must run parallel.
Anyway is there anyone who said that we should totally depend on SOF to perform the task?