Μilitary Questions & Answers

Most of the time cloud will make such weapons ineffective if they are optically or IR guided...

Don't know about the 32km range Spike but the shorter range models are very slow... like Javelin...

Early model Igla without proximity fuse has about a 50% kill rate in tests with slow moving AT-3 target missiles... which are similar speed and slightly smaller than Javelin or Spike missiles... When fitted with proximity fuses the kill rate went up to over 90% because they no longer had to make direct contact to set off the MANPADS warhead so a 5cm miss will still destroy the target.

APS systems should be able to engage such threats and basic camouflage and decoys should be useful too...

Poland could have 1,000 F-22s, it wouldn't make any difference... Russia has no reason to invade... any military interaction will be Russian nukes destroying US forces and US bases in Poland and likely the major cities too just to eliminate a threat.

Russian SHORAD expects intense ECM... they have optical backup for most of there SAMs and guns...

32km range ATGMs with drones are a potent threat... just like Russian 100km range ATGMs and drones will be to HATO.

How many working tanks does HATO even have?

They claim fire and explosion happened, during service of ship in the well area. ( Area containing the floating Dock).  I have some questions, about this claim. If anyone knows, can answer please.

( 1 ) Ship was docked at port for sometime. Is it likely it carried live ammo still, that could catch fire?

( 2 )  Was there any planes or helicopters on deck at that time?

( 3 ) What is position of boiler and Turbine , in relation to fire?

( 4 )  What fuel is used?  Does it ignite with naked flame or spark?

( 5 ) Does position of and colour of smoke correspond to fire below deck in fuel tank?

https://edition.cnn.com/videos/us/2020/07/12/navy-ship-fire-san-diego-uss-bonhomme-richard-sot-vpx.cnn/video/playlists/top-news-videos/

If it turns out to be accidental, then no more questions. But if not, then two possibility. Either it was Usrael false flag or Iranian retaliation. I think the attack on Natanz more likely Usrael. Since the Americans had a headache recently in Assad base. Also it is the tail that wags the dog. Usrael has great advantage to drag Yanks into war. Not the other way around. Also unlikely that, even if attack on Natanz was from Americans, then this response from Iran at this stage would be  escalation. Remember the response from Iran, for Soliemani, far worse situation, was very limited. No attack on American soil. These are somethings the Iranians are less likely to miscalculate.

I think the attacks in Iran, were done by man portable devices. Small drones do not have the warhead size. But 120 mm GPS guided mortar, has the range and type of damage inflicted. It is also pre - programmable and not too large. Enabling indirect fire from hilly area.  Also accuracy low, as evident from hit on corner, and not centre of building. The Iranians, should be able to recover fragments. I think if these are Usrael, then they should present evidence to Trump and the world.  And if evidence of false flag also presented. He will be in hot water with his Usrael friends. But if the evidence is proof of yank involvement, then they should not present evidence. ( if in practice they will expell them) Irrespective of if this incident is termed accident or otherwise. In that case just help Yanks out of ME region.  IMHO.

https://www.tasnimnews.com/en/news/2020/07/14/2306847/irgc-quds-force-chief-us-navy-ship-fire-result-of-washington-crimes

Here at least, Iran is denying involvement. But also saying this to be no accident. Therefore they say it is false flag by Americans themselves. Although I don't rule out Usrael  involvement.

Iran simply did not have enough time to analyse the Natanz attack and decide what action to take. And I doubt they would act rashly or hastily.  ( And this explosion came way too quickly and conveniently.) Iran would especially not  attack on US on own soil. So it is important to find cause. Because the Neocons could cover up sabotage by own CIA forces or Usrael false flag. Then they will try to blame Iran for it. American sailors must provide evidence to a world body or press, about any info on possible false flag ops. This increasing likely, if explosion inside ship was cause. And not attack on deck. The latter could possibly be Iranian. But Iran has no capability to attack inside ship. But  Zionist sympathisers or yank CIA Neocon Pompeo or themselves do have access to inside of ship.

Edit : since it has been decided rightly to strike openly and directly at USA. Then this should be done after open display of detterent by Iran. And strike limited to Americans in neutral territory of open waters.

I was collecting some data regarded GPS guided munitions and i have a questions here

Before Glonass ,did Russia ever has tested GPS guided bombs ?

If yes ,these kits had supposed to work with Coarse Acquisition (C/A-code) because AFAIK the  P-code is designed for US authorized military users ,so what was the CEP for the Russian GPS bomb ?

I'm wondering if the C/A code could be sufficient for a good CEP ,so that the exported russian platforms (like Mig and Sukhoi to Egypt ) could use this signal for precision guided munitions (if Glonass wasn't available) along with INS and IIR or other guide kits ,at least using the C/A code for mid course and leave the final targeting to other kits .

Scalp missile is supposed to use GPS in mid course too (i'm not sure the P code could be available for Egyptian Rafale ,so the missile GPS kit is there but would work may be on C/A code only !)

The French AASM INS/GPS , Once the coordinates have been entered in the weapon, the INS enable it to hit the target without requiring a GPS signal, if it is unavailable. And the IIR version would allows the bomb to recalculate its trajectory during the last few seconds prior to impact using image recognition algorithms.

So ,what is the need for the military GPS signal if we can use the civilian one in the mid-course and then other kits will complete the job ! or we can use only INS for mid course . Is it all about jamming resistance and more little accuracy ?

Actually Iran has produced a GPS/INS version of it's Ghassed bomb which means they got a good CEP using C/A code but at the end GPS could be turned off there as US did over Georgia .

Before Glonass ,did Russia ever has tested GPS guided bombs ?

They didn't have access to the military signals of Navstar, and in times of conflict the civilian signal is normally not accurate enough and also was turned off.

The US control Navstar and can turn areas off as they please... which makes it useless for military purposes.

If yes ,these kits had supposed to work with Coarse Acquisition (C/A-code) because AFAIK the P-code is designed for US authorized military users ,so what was the CEP for the Russian GPS bomb ?

They didn't make any.

I'm wondering if the C/A code could be sufficient for a good CEP ,so that the exported russian platforms (like Mig and Sukhoi to Egypt ) could use this signal for precision guided munitions (if Glonass wasn't available) along with INS and IIR or other guide kits ,at least using the C/A code for mid course and leave the final targeting to other kits .

If you were going to use Russian systems it makes no sense to then sabotage that by using US sourced and control guidance channels... once the decision is made the US could and would turn off the civilian signal where and when they like... they did it in Georgia in 8 8 08... and any conflict the US didn't approve of they could do it over Israel and Egypt and Libya etc etc.

Scalp missile is supposed to use GPS in mid course too (i'm not sure the P code could be available for Egyptian Rafale ,so the missile GPS kit is there but would work may be on C/A code only !)

I am guessing the intertial nav system on Scalp would be pretty good and with terminal homing... not getting a GPS fix on the way wont hurt it much at all... just possibly more manouvering needed in the latter stages of the attack.

So ,what is the need for the military GPS signal if we can use the civilian one in the mid-course and then other kits will complete the job ! or we can use only INS for mid course . Is it all about jamming resistance and more little accuracy ?

The Civilian signal might not be there when you need it...

Actually Iran has produced a GPS/INS version of it's Ghassed bomb which means they got a good CEP using C/A code but at the end GPS could be turned off there as US did over Georgia .

Well it all depends if GPS means navstar or just what it says... global positioning system... which could be the US or Russian or Chinese or European systems and any combination of their civilian signals...

Normally when you take off on a mission you zero your navigation system at a fixed point at the airfield that is known with extreme precision.

At which point you can look at where the GLONASS receiver says you are and a Navstar receiver says you are and a Galileo receiver says you are... and the combined results give you an average figure... the average figure error from where you know you actually are can be used to calculate the actual figure when you are in flight on the way to the target area making it much more accurate than any civilian system on its own.... on or off.

Russia will jamm GPS 24/7 in any conflict anyway. Why would they use it then ?

They didn't have access to the military signals of Navstar, and in times of conflict the civilian signal is normally not accurate enough and also was turned off.

I've read before that civilian GPS could be used effectively if it could be used along with a good INS for mid-course and additional guidance kits for last stage.

You can save the coordinates of the highly important bases or fixed target of your enemy like big early warning radars and use them at war time by uploading  them at bombs computers and with the help from INS it will find their way to the targets even if the GPS was interrupted or jammed ,with additional final stage kits ,you will score a good CEP .

Also using diffrential GPS would make it better .

If you were going to use Russian systems it makes no sense to then sabotage that by using US sourced and control guidance channels... once the decision is made the US could and would turn off the civilian signal where and when they like... they did it in Georgia in 8 8 08... and any conflict the US didn't approve of they could do it over Israel and Egypt and Libya etc etc.

I guess it's better to use both systems combined .

I am guessing the intertial nav system on Scalp would be pretty good and with terminal homing... not getting a GPS fix on the way wont hurt it much at all... just possibly more manouvering needed in the latter stages of the attack.

That's what i thought too , improving the INS and adding other guidance kits to correct the coordinates that was uploaded during launch time even if it was completely wrong .

Russia will jamm GPS 24/7 in any conflict anyway. Why would they use it then ?

I was searching for anyone who has used the civilian signal and to which level it could be accurate .

Isos ,do you have any informations about the GPS guidance kit on SCALP if it use automatically the GPS military signal or it needs some kind of decryption or authentication which US only provide ? I mean if Egypt launched the SCALP now ,will it use the P code or it's not allowed by ITAR or other US shit    and only it will use C/A code ?

Russia will jamm GPS 24/7 in any conflict anyway. Why would they use it then ?

Even if they don't, if the US even suspects Russian military personel might be using civilian Navstar receivers they will turn it off in that area for the duration of the conflict.

Right now I would think part of Ratnik one will be GLONASS receivers for navigation so every Russian soldier already has access to location data from GLONASS satellites at the very least. It probably uses signals from Navstar and the other two networks but wont be dependent on them because they could be turned off without warning anyway.

AFAIK Navstar doesn't work above certain speeds and altitudes and probably would not work anywhere near an Israeli nuclear reactor or US military base in the US for instance...

I've read before that civilian GPS could be used effectively if it could be used along with a good INS for mid-course and additional guidance kits for last stage.

Inertial navigation systems use precise timers and accelerometers to measure speed and angle and drift... over time they lose accuracy but you can compensate for that. A terrain comparison guidance system looks at the target area for features like hill tops or identifyable bends in rivers or where roads fork into two or more rivers or roads. When programming a cruise missile attack you look at where the enemies known air defence systems are and so if there is a row of low hills nearby you would plan to fly on the other side of those out of view of the air defence systems. Say along the line of hills there is a river valley your missile can turn down to get to its target... the river valley is a fixed point so no matter how far the missile has flown to get there once it gets there it can now accurately pinpoint its position. If on the other side of those hills having come through the river valley there is a hard left turn and your target is right there it is an ideal way to send the missile because as the missile heads down the river valley when it gets to the end it can see its position in the air in relation to that point and calculate its exact position in 3D space... a hard left turn and the target should be right there... no need for satellite signals.

Flying down a road or river was how pilots used to navigate across country... with a map on their knee and a stopwatch they could fly on a heading for x number of seconds at y speed and work out where they should end up on the map and then look around on the map to see what should be visible from there... and so then you fly there and look to see if you can see what you should be able to see.... for instance are you between two tall peaks, or flying over a 5 road intersection... or is there a large area of planted fields to your left or whatever.

For a missile... check the air pressure and then send a super weak radio signal to the ground to determine your height above ground and with the air pressure determine your height above sea level... does that match the land height where you are currently flying.... look around you.... do the highest points of ground match the terrain around you on your digital map.... if you have a GLONASS signal check that too.

You can save the coordinates of the highly important bases or fixed target of your enemy like big early warning radars and use them at war time by uploading them at bombs computers and with the help from INS it will find their way to the targets even if the GPS was interrupted or jammed ,with additional final stage kits ,you will score a good CEP .

These days with cheap storage you can upload a complete 3D map of the terrain heights in the region and based on the location at launch from the aircraft carrying you you could work out where the target is and a useful flight path to get there... a jet powered cruise missile is just an unmanned plane really and the targeting system its autopilot.

Also using diffrential GPS would make it better .

If it is on... yes.

Most modern civilian GPS devices use both Navstar and GLONASS... because both receivers are cheap and it makes it more accurate to use both.

That's what i thought too , improving the INS and adding other guidance kits to correct the coordinates that was uploaded during launch time even if it was completely wrong .

Modern ring laser gyros are so accurate if you put it on a table it could detect the rotation of the earth. They use fibre optic cables and are very accurate...

Having points on your flight path where precision can reset the error clock to zero of course makes it even better.

Isos ,do you have any informations about the GPS guidance kit on SCALP if it use automatically the GPS military signal or it needs some kind of decryption or authentication which US only provide ? I mean if Egypt launched the SCALP now ,will it use the P code or it's not allowed by ITAR or other US shit censored and only it will use C/A code ?

I don't know, but would suspect the whole purpose of Gallieo is that either the europeans can get guaranteed access to the military Navstar codes, or they don't fully trust the US. Either way I would suspect a European missile would use both european and US GPS for better accuracy and redundancy.

Are drones a poor man's weapon? If so then it is more important to design a better use in attack mode, than to design a defence against. EMP may be used to disable drones. Question is how to overcome this problem?  I think it possible to turn signals off, near target, and allow drone to fly in internal guidance to target, for the last few hundred meters or kilometer. Or turn off and on, to pass over EMP ring fence to target. EMP non- nuclear  device range seems very short, from my TV observations? Using a bigger warhead frag, will make sure that soft target is destroyed. No need for pin point accuracy. What do you think?

Edit : Automated system will work on having intermittent guidance with EMP detection intervals to allow or disallow next guidance interval to protect electrics.

Drones are different things to different users.

For poor small powers it is an opportunity to get access to recon and attack abilities previously only very rich very powerful countries could hope to have.

For medium powers it is also a way to get such capabilities on the cheap and in numbers they couldn't otherwise afford.

For a superpower it is a way of saving a lot of money on things they could afford but now can do cheaper, but it also offers them a chance to use their overwhelming financial advantage over enemies to make mass attacks modelled on swarms.

What they don't realise is that they are even more vulnerable to said swarms than their enemies so they are opening pandoras box.

The US can make Keyhole satellites that are extraordinary, but what they are not good at is cheap and affordable... that is something China or Russia or even India could manage, but not the US.

That means for the most part US drones are murder bots or super expensive unmanned aircraft that are more expensive than many previous generation fighter aircraft.

Drones will be good for monitoring and observing, and in that role they can be relatively cheap and very effective, but if you want a bomb truck or suicide drone then they are either tiny and of limited effectiveness like a little drone that drops hand grenades, or they become more expensive like the bigger US murder bots.

Of course the Russians seem to have developed a whole range of new weapons for drones which adds a new dimension... one of the main reasons using hellfire missiles in the 1980s was that Apache helicopters were expensive to operate, but fitted to a drone... Hellfire missiles are still very expensive for what they are and a high flying drone can be 8km above a target that it drops a 20kg bomb onto... it does not need the stand off range the Hellfire provides to helicopter platforms...

The weapons the Russians are developing hopefully will include an anti tank grenade because a small shaped charge weapon that could be dropped on enemy armour would be very useful and rather more effective than normal hand grenades which will do serious damage to cars but wont do much to most armoured vehicles.

Knowing the Russians they probably have their PTABs.

I should explain that the Soviets and Russians standardised their submunitions, so whether it is from a 250kg or a 500kg bomb or from a 152mm artillery shell or 122mm rocket or 220mm rocket or 300mm rocket, their anti armour submunition is the PTAB... which is a small relatively light HEAT armed munition... they are all the same model, just the bigger containers hold more of them.

They are ready made and designed to be released above a target so a helicopter type drone with a dozen of these pointing vertically down ready to be dropped on target would be a very effective way of dealing with armoured vehicles in a very selective way... even with a downward pointing camera for aiming purposes...

IronsightSniper wrote:Here's a question, what's the difference between a semi-rigid gun and a swiveling one?

Howdy just a general discussion Americans own guns for real maybe patriotic what do you think difference between pickin’ which shooter ya wanting to kick like a two ton truck.

Has anyone seen the "woke" US Army ad of Emma and her 2 moms?

Guest wrote:Has anyone seen the "woke" US Army ad of Emma and her 2 moms?

Yes, there was an thread somewhere here showing the trailer, we had an good laugh about it.
I cant find back where it was tough.

The comment section on the U.S recruitment youtube page was absolute gold.

At Airbornewolf - US standards are high sometimes it is hard to imagine who is highlighted in green let me tell you I’m not lying to you it’s only done what a ‘Veteran’ has done. Registered green font meaning army professional. I barely believe it to be honest. Speaking with a veteran. So as far as the comment, US recruitment is no joke and neither or shall I say I have seen some drill sergeants. Sing me a marching rhyme songs. You better come up with those two line marching rhymes quickly marching after that drill sergeant early morning. Then maybe you can think about moving anywhere else upwards in rank in the US army before asking for a promotion.

Americans are good in my books but for us all dislike can be either. Recruitment into army isn’t easy work.

Airbornewolf is european, he has worked with Americans in warzones and in peace time but he was a HATO soldier, not a US one.

American leadership and those with power have made Russians the bad guys, which in my eyes does not make sense because the American leadership has done more bad than Russia has.

A bully spending the morning slapping all his fellow pupils as usual and he goes to slap the new kid, who punches back and the bully complains to the teacher that the new kid is a bully.

I find it hard to like the bully or his family who defend his actions...

Is there a place for the coastal defense battleship and the large battleship in modern naval warfare?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coastal_defence_ship#Effectiveness

https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/navy-ships/a26717/what-would-a-21st-century-battleship-look-like/#:~:text=Heavily%20armored%20and%20bristling%20with%20powerful%2016%20to,ever%20commissioned%2C%20HMS%20Vanguard%2C%20entered%20service%20in%201946.

No.

A battleship was like a tank... it was designed to have armour to protect it from the guns of the enemy ships and with guns big enough to penetrate the armour of enemy ships.

Problem was that with ships the level of armour or such a large area made them eye wateringly heavy which requires a lot of metal and also a lot of power to move it around the place... no point in being super powerful in terms of guns and armour if you are an Island that does not move.

The problem is that a battleship is very expensive and relatively slow and very large anti ship missiles are very powerful... most Soviet era anti ship missiles had a ton of explosives... the newer missiles were getting faster and faster which means defeating armour could be achieved simply by hammering it repeatedly with missiles.

Not every square centimetre can be covered with heavy armour protection and all the weak spots will be found and defeated.

The only modern battleships in use were the reactivated Iowa class US battle ships and the Sverdlov class Soviet battleships and they were reactivated primarily to use their guns... the Iowa class had 406mm guns with good range and enormous HE power and the Sverdlov had 152mm guns with OK range and more power than their other naval artillery pieces.

The Russians are introducing their new 152mm coalition gun, which I presume is for naval gun support... naval guns are water cooled and have fully automated loading systems and a high rate of fire and the ammo capacity to sustain that high fire rate in all weather day and night from a position that has an IADS network to protect it from return fire.

The old ships were just too obsolete to keep using, they had enormous crews and most things were done manually which is not ideal.

The US will look at a coastal defence battleship because they don't have MiG-31Ks with Kinzhals.

Soon Zircon will perform the same role too from cheaper surface launchers... probably based on the same launchers currently carrying Onyx missiles because the new missile is essentially the same except it has a scramjet motor instead of a ramjet motor.

A modern battleship with heavy armour would be redundant because if US battleships are defending the US from external attack the odds are that attack will be nuclear anyway and the armour of a battleship means nothing to a nuke.

For conventional use it would be slow, and any gun of any decent size to be effective.... would likely need to be a 203mm or bigger gun, but I suspect with new technology you could get great performance, and they will promise cheap operational costs, but they will be lying because they don't know how to do cheap.

I am sure with current experience and experience in Syria Russia is realising the value of 203mm guns and 240mm mortars in combat, and certainly a new naval gun able to fire 203mm rounds to 200km or further with a CEP of 10m or less would be a very useful weapon...

Current plans are to extend the 70km range of the 152mm ammo of the Coalition to 180km or so in the naval version...

Water absorbs recoil very well, which makes super heavy artillery on a ship much easier to design and use than land based equivalents or indeed airborne versions.

For defeating troops in trenches and bunkers , a ground based Mini - Rov , can be used . The chaotic and jerky movement , together with very small size and blending into background , make this a very useful device (surpassing the UCAV ? ) carrying a small frag device . The military application , need only add this explosive device ! Design already on market ! Range should be about 2.5 kilometres . Improvements can be made , by allowing this ball to jump now and again , to make it even more difficult to hit by small arms . A mass attack against trench or bunker , will soon clear it of troops . What you think ?

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Ap7kTXvZHtA

They already use balls like that with cameras in them they can throw through doors and windows before entering enemy held rooms...I am not sure covering 100m plus of no mans land in front of a trench line and getting into a trench with a useful amount of HE would be possible... how far would it get in mud?

How many battlefields don't have mud?

And hitting it would be relatively straight forward most grenade launchers and hand grenades would do the job... from a trench you could use defensive grenades.

Both Russian current hand grenades have an impact fuse so landing the grenade within a metre or so of one or more of these balls would do the job.

The RGO and RGN grenades have impact as well as delay fuses.

Why was 30mm ammunition chosen over 23x115mm ammunition for IFV, BMPT and unmanned turrets for btr-80/82 and bmp 1/2??

Does anyone have a list of the unmanned turrets currently offered by Russian industry?

The 30mm grenade is all projectile and a tiny stub propellant section. Its lower velocity and short range is not a big problem and means you can lob them over cover even at relatively short range.

Turrets are made by different makers and each has their own range.

Different companies probably had offerings for each role so one company has the Epocha range which seems successful, but there will be other companies with alternative types too.

There are likely alternative types to T-14 as well... other than the Sprut turret of course.

Oh I'm sorry, I'll rephrase the question, I didn't mean the 30mm grenade launcher

I meant why did they choose the 30mm autocannon over the 23x115mm autocannon?

The 23 x 115mm is almost a grenade launcher.... its best feature is its low velocity so light twin barrel guns can fire at 3,500rpm without throwing the aircraft all over the sky in doing so.
It is carried by fighter aircraft of the previous generation and also the MiG-31 for shooting cruise missiles at enormous rates of fire. (the 6 barrel 23mm gatling fires at about 12K rpm in very small bursts that result in HE rounds scattering around the point of aim like a cluster bomb so even manouvering targets are in trouble.

At 700m/s  its MV is very low, but it has the same heavy (for its calibre) projectile as the Shilka round (23 x 152mm) which is a much more powerful round.

The 30 x 165mm is even more powerful again and has a heavier projectile moving at much higher speeds that is effective to much greater ranges.

Against soft targets like Trucks and even APCs like original M113s the 23x115mm is very good... the main users are the latest model Hind with the chin turret and the tail gun of the Il-76 with two twin barrel guns.

Superior to 50 cal or HMG but not a high velocity anti armour round like the 14.5mm.

Conversely if there is enemy armour then the 30 x 165mm is much more potent and can damage tanks from the side and rear.

Its velocity makes it effective against helicopters out to about 4km, while the 23 x 115mm would struggle at 2km because of its low initial velocity.

Light weight compact ammo means you can carry a lot... it is not much bigger than HMG ammo really.

If you wanted to make an anti material rifle a 23 x 115mm gun would be interesting... a good (heavy) HE round and the capacity for a very high velocity APFSDS round of decent size.

Note the APFSDS round for the 20mm Phalanx is about a 50 cal projectile, so the AFSDS round for a 23mm cannon round could be a 57 cal projectile.

Thank you, it makes sense now why they chose it and why comparing to a grenade