Jump to content


Photo

Cold War, The Reimagined Series


  • Please log in to reply
7229 replies to this topic

#7221 Chris Werb

Chris Werb

    In Zod We Trust

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 23,395 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Orkney, Scotland, UK
  • Interests:But it's got electrolytes! They're what plants crave!

Posted 19 March 2019 - 1403 PM

 

 

uR4Qbn5c_400x400.jpg

 

Blows up the tank regiment HQ with Storm Shadow :) :) :)

 

Seriously, a programmable, self acquiring missile with a 24km (or whatever Brimstone II actually has) range, is a pretty good addition to AT, capability and very useful against other targets like SPAAGs, SPHs etc. The obvious problem is it currently relies on Typhoons to launch it which would be highly problematic vs a peer opponent with good GBAD, let alone air supremacy. It would be really handy to have a ground launched version and have it on attack Helos. JAGM is essentially Brimstone II Lite.

 

 

 

The nice thing about HQ's, when they are functioning that is, is that they dont tend to move.......

 

 

 

A tank regiment HQ is going to be composed largely of armoured vehicles. They will not stay put for long. Even if they did, are you going to use one of a relatively tiny number of hugely expensive 300+ km range, unitary penetrating warhead (BROACH no less)  ALCMs on it? This is going to take time to programme the missile for which you will need target imagery and, IIRC, it can only be done on the ground prior to take off - you had better hope that the enemy doesn't move anything around or leave the target area by the time the missile arrives. Assuming it does, it will make one, not very significant hole in the ground. Now lets look at the alternatives - how about just lobbing a quick reacting, battery level 155mm concentration on it - preferably with SMaRT or BONUS in the mix or perhaps one or two SMaRT carrying GMLRS? What advantage does StormShadow have over that?


  • 0

#7222 Josh

Josh

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 13,752 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:New York City

Posted 19 March 2019 - 1432 PM

My understanding is that while HQs at the regiment/brigade level were technically mobile, actually coordinating on the move was quite problematic. I'd heard anecdotally that attacking the brigade HQ was exactly what the Red Team at National Training Center was known to do really well, partially because the HQs didn't relocate enough. This isn't to say I know anything of current Russian doctrine or capabilities, but just because something is on treads doesn't mean it is constantly mobile. Look at how many times the Syrians managed to get SAM batteries killed that technically fully mobile.

That said, a cruise missile seems like system with a slow reaction time and high price tag given the lethal radius. It might make sense for tactical tomahawk, since the US likely has a bunch at the ready and can give it a target update in flight, but if you're assigning that kind of weapon to a regiment HQ clearly you're in a particularly desperate race against time. Hopefully something more practical could be implemented as a stand off solution - JSOW-ER, SDBs, something.

More broadly, is there any goal to install something like SDB II to a large bomber? Seems to me you could easily load a B-1 or B-2 with four per Mk84 sized store if you put the work in. If you used a customized rack system the way the B-2 does for Mk82 GPS you could probably take that a lot further. That would allow you to broadly target the regiment instead of its HQ.


  • 0

#7223 carrierlost

carrierlost

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 963 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Estonia

Posted 19 March 2019 - 1835 PM

 

 


 

Crimea is well protected, but defending a big vulnerable bomber sitting on the tarmac just miles from the sea can't be an easy thing.  The extra range advantage from the Crimea seems seems to mean little given that the base is hemmed in by NATO territory.   If Turkey were to leave NATO, different story.

 

Simferopol is 40-50 miles from sea. And if bomber is on sitting on the tarmac by the time of the attack - it is useless anyway.

 

Tha exact figure for the airbase is 20miles from coast


  • 0

#7224 Stuart Galbraith

Stuart Galbraith

    Just Another Salisbury Tourist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 50,579 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Eloiland

Posted 20 March 2019 - 0259 AM

 

 

 

uR4Qbn5c_400x400.jpg

 

Blows up the tank regiment HQ with Storm Shadow :) :) :)

 

Seriously, a programmable, self acquiring missile with a 24km (or whatever Brimstone II actually has) range, is a pretty good addition to AT, capability and very useful against other targets like SPAAGs, SPHs etc. The obvious problem is it currently relies on Typhoons to launch it which would be highly problematic vs a peer opponent with good GBAD, let alone air supremacy. It would be really handy to have a ground launched version and have it on attack Helos. JAGM is essentially Brimstone II Lite.

 

 

 

The nice thing about HQ's, when they are functioning that is, is that they dont tend to move.......

 

 

 

A tank regiment HQ is going to be composed largely of armoured vehicles. They will not stay put for long. Even if they did, are you going to use one of a relatively tiny number of hugely expensive 300+ km range, unitary penetrating warhead (BROACH no less)  ALCMs on it? This is going to take time to programme the missile for which you will need target imagery and, IIRC, it can only be done on the ground prior to take off - you had better hope that the enemy doesn't move anything around or leave the target area by the time the missile arrives. Assuming it does, it will make one, not very significant hole in the ground. Now lets look at the alternatives - how about just lobbing a quick reacting, battery level 155mm concentration on it - preferably with SMaRT or BONUS in the mix or perhaps one or two SMaRT carrying GMLRS? What advantage does StormShadow have over that?

 

 

Well they are going to have to stay put long enough to set up arent they? I dont accept they are suddenly able to broadcast and command on the fly, because they didnt demonstrate anything like that in the cold war. Even US commanders find that a highly inefficient way to command.

 

If you have a jstars platform, or even better, are assembling data continually through the passage of F35's, I think anything that is going to stay still for long is going to end up targeted and dead. If we accept this is true of Russia with their Tornado S batteries, even though their theatre recce is not a patch on ours, why do we believe we dont have similar capabilities, when quite clearly we do and have demonstrated them in Syria and Iraq?

 

Is it a good weapon for the role? Clearly not. Im just illustrating the point, the importance is not the weapon, the importance is the tactical ability to identify targets quickly enough to target them.

 

Yes, there are better solutions, I quite agree. And yet if they are sitting out of range of 155mm batteries, I dont imagine we are going to throw up our hands in despair and say 'Too difficult'.


  • 0

#7225 Stuart Galbraith

Stuart Galbraith

    Just Another Salisbury Tourist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 50,579 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Eloiland

Posted 20 March 2019 - 0305 AM

My understanding is that while HQs at the regiment/brigade level were technically mobile, actually coordinating on the move was quite problematic. I'd heard anecdotally that attacking the brigade HQ was exactly what the Red Team at National Training Center was known to do really well, partially because the HQs didn't relocate enough. This isn't to say I know anything of current Russian doctrine or capabilities, but just because something is on treads doesn't mean it is constantly mobile. Look at how many times the Syrians managed to get SAM batteries killed that technically fully mobile.

That said, a cruise missile seems like system with a slow reaction time and high price tag given the lethal radius. It might make sense for tactical tomahawk, since the US likely has a bunch at the ready and can give it a target update in flight, but if you're assigning that kind of weapon to a regiment HQ clearly you're in a particularly desperate race against time. Hopefully something more practical could be implemented as a stand off solution - JSOW-ER, SDBs, something.

More broadly, is there any goal to install something like SDB II to a large bomber? Seems to me you could easily load a B-1 or B-2 with four per Mk84 sized store if you put the work in. If you used a customized rack system the way the B-2 does for Mk82 GPS you could probably take that a lot further. That would allow you to broadly target the regiment instead of its HQ.

 

I think I read somewhere a B2 can take something like 80 odd mk82 JDAM's. Which is going to more than enough to completely destroy any HQ down to the outside toilet. But yes, SDB might be a better solution, its not as if this would be an exceptionally hardened target.

 

Ive read the same thing, if you want to make a coordinated plan, you have to stop, lay it out, coordinate with your attachments, then broadcast it. I accept the Russians ARE adopting command and control systems like ours, yet I see no evidence is been widely adopted yet. Until that day comes, they are going to have to do it the old fashioned way.The only question of doing it to a potential Russian force remains air defence.  So we are back to either very stealthy delivery platforms, or standoff weapons.

 

Its just my personal opinion, and im not going to beat anyone over the head with it.


  • 0

#7226 Josh

Josh

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 13,752 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:New York City

Posted 20 March 2019 - 0629 AM

B-2s can definitely carry 80 guided weapons; theres even a full video of a test drop on this scale. But clearly that asset has other priorities. I merely point out that a dedicated rack system for standoff PGMs would allow a rather vast number to be carried. Id prefer something with more range than GBU-53 but its about to enter service and more or less fits the bill. Outfitting B-1s with it would make sense - they could do a fast low level penetration or else a high altitude supersonic dash.
  • 0

#7227 Stuart Galbraith

Stuart Galbraith

    Just Another Salisbury Tourist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 50,579 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Eloiland

Posted 20 March 2019 - 0642 AM

Yeah, I entirely agree.


  • 0

#7228 Roman Alymov

Roman Alymov

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,782 posts
  • Location:Moscow, Russia
  • Interests:Tank recovery

Posted 20 March 2019 - 1709 PM


  • 0

#7229 Stuart Galbraith

Stuart Galbraith

    Just Another Salisbury Tourist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 50,579 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Eloiland

Posted Today, 04:51 AM

 

Please join the Atlantic Council for a public conversation on “US Military Strategy in the Era of Great-Power Competition: A Conversation with General Joseph F. Dunford, Jr., USMC, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff" as part of the Atlantic Council's Commanders Series. General Joseph F. Dunford, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, will join us to kick-off the 10th Anniversary of the Council’s Commanders Series at the Atlantic Council’s Headquarters (1030 15th St NW, 12th Floor, West Tower Elevators, Washington, DC 20005). The US National Security Strategy and National Defense Strategy make clear that the United States is facing renewed and long-term great-power competition. The United States’ military is now facing technologically sophisticated adversaries intent on undermining the US-led global order. Russia’s military buildup and grey zone activities threaten European security and prosperity, while China’s growing political, economic, technological, and military assertiveness challenges the US and its partners in Asia and beyond. Meanwhile, North Korea’s nuclear saber-rattling and Iran’s hostile activities also pose threats to the United States and its allies. In this era of great-power competition, US military strategy requires significant adaptation and agility, as US armed forces must be prepared to be tested in ways we have not seen for decades. As Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Dunford is the nation’s highest-ranking military officer and the principal military advisor to the President, Secretary of Defense, and National Security Council. Drawing on more than four decades of distinguished service in the US Marine Corps, General Dunford will join us to discuss the US military priorities of today and into the 2020s. In this conversation moderated by CNN's Pentagon Correspondent Barbara Starr, General Dunford will focus on challenges to US military superiority; US military approaches to combating long-term threats; and maintaining dominance and lethality in all domains (air, sea, land, space, and cyber).


  • 0

#7230 Stuart Galbraith

Stuart Galbraith

    Just Another Salisbury Tourist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 50,579 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Eloiland

Posted Today, 10:05 AM


  • 0




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users