Greece buys 18 Rafale's from France. Greece continues to aggressively upgrade its military as its also procuring new Frigates, upgrade their command and control, and extend the national service term from 9 to 12 months.
Greece buys 18 Rafale's from France. Greece continues to aggressively upgrade its military as its also procuring new Frigates, upgrade their command and control, and extend the national service term from 9 to 12 months.
Meanwhile, as the Americans strut their nuclear submarine in the Persian Gulf, the IRGC Aerospace Force conducted their own show of force today. They exercised their first multiple ballistic launch since 2005 and introduced a new loitering drone. The test distance for the missiles from 700 to 1000 km. All told, they launched 17 ballistic missiles of varying types. https://twitter.com/user/status/1349998197364715522
This is likely a short range ballistic missile which may/may not have a separable warhead. The effect of terminal phase guidance on the movement and accuracy of the missiles is evident. Five small targets and five missiles. The circular error probability is under 50m by the looks of it. https://twitter.com/user/status/1350032650799611904
Shahed-161 Loitering Drone
In the first video at the top of this post, you can see four flying in a tight formation. Advanced AI flight control according to the Iranians.
Drone defense for the North seems like a no brainer to me for Canada. We should be heavily investing in this future tech, plus the spin offs from that could be really beneficial!
Greece is simply looking after the defense of it's own borders, because there is a historic threat in Turkey flexing to the East. Additional spending in military procurement won't raise much of an uproar with the Greek population, considering the temperature in the area at the moment.
Two weeks ago, he said he could tell from the exhausted faces of young Armenian soldiers that the relentless air bombardment from Turkish-made drones — many equipped with Canadian-made targeting systems — was crushing his country's ability to keep going.
"They sold us out," Hovahnnisyan said bitterly of the western nations, including Canada, claiming they either failed to take meaningful steps to help Armenia or didn't do enough to stop NATO ally Turkey from tipping the balance of power in favour of Azerbaijan.
__________________
"We don't even know who our best player is yet. It could be any one of us at this point." - Peter LaFleur, player/coach, Average Joe's Gymnasium
Part of the solution is maneuverable warheads that will have RADAR/IR/Optical terminal guidance.
But you still need to know where the target is. The big question with respect to target acquisition is how do you achieve over-the-horizon TA? A typical Iranian asymmetrical approach might be swarms of drones, but that can waste a lot of resources.
So a combo of satellites and drones. TripleSat, Jilin-1, Zhuhai-1, SuperView-1 will be complete next year for higher res satellite imagery. https://eos.com/superview-1/
Covert Cabal did a neat video on this topic a few months ago. I think if a nation wanted a realistic chance of hitting a US carrier with maneuverable reentry vehicles they probably just need to know exactly where it is for a minute or so when they're ready to fire. Then its just a numbers game. They'd have to fire enough missiles to accommodate any potential target location for the terminal guidance phase, among other things. US Satellites would detect the launches and the naval ships would begin some evasive maneuvering. It might take 250-350 DF-21Ds launched simultaneously to cover all potential location outcomes depending on the distance, or maybe many more, but probably doable for the PLA, maybe not so much for Iran.
IMHO, I think the best way to hit a US carrier is by using a Swedish submarine!
Drone defense for the North seems like a no brainer to me for Canada. We should be heavily investing in this future tech, plus the spin offs from that could be really beneficial!
It is probably an idea that requires further evaluation. The difficulty is getting the politicians to buy into it and actually commit to the defence of the North instead of just paying lip service to the North.
__________________
"If you do not know what you are doing, neither does your enemy."
- - Joe Tzu
I do not know how to embede a video from reddit here but thought this was cool.
A user on reddit pointed out the launcher shoots 3 rounds, and is moved on from its location prior to the first one hitting, which at first I thought was cool... but it doesn't actually seem that impressive. It seems like a slow moving, slow shooting truck that a drone could attack.
I assume these are more of a defensive item?
In action - 14 secs
First round - 23 secs
second - 32 secs
third - 40 secs
out of action - 50 secs
Transportation - 74 secs
Each round - time to impact (not sure how relevant given distance/arc change)- 54 secs- although that seems like a very long arc time!
A user on reddit pointed out the launcher shoots 3 rounds, and is moved on from its location prior to the first one hitting, which at first I thought was cool... but it doesn't actually seem that impressive. It seems like a slow moving, slow shooting truck that a drone could attack. It seems like a slow moving, slow shooting truck...
They claim 30s from establishing a firing position to first shot down range, then a salvo of three shots in 15 seconds, and then 30s more to wrap up and move. That's very impressive, actually. There isn't anything else out there that fast.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mull
...a drone could attack.
Yes, it's vulnerable to drone attack. For current examples, look no further than Libya and Nagorno-Karabakh. But all vehicles nowadays are vulnerable to the drone threat. Solutions such as EW and air defense can mitigate that threat.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mull
I assume these are more of a defensive item?
Artillery has to remain lethal and flexible whether in defense or the offense and its function doesn't really change in the sense that it must be used in conjunction with (ie, to support) maneuver units. If it's not, then it's just a waste of ammo.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mull
Each round - time to impact (not sure how relevant given distance/arc change)- 54 secs- although that seems like a very long arc time!
The flight time depends on numerous factors, but I will keep it simple by just considering the types of ammo. The max ranges are between 30 and 60 km so 54s is not unreasonable.
__________________
"If you do not know what you are doing, neither does your enemy."
- - Joe Tzu
The Following User Says Thank You to Baron von Kriterium For This Useful Post:
Drone defense for the North seems like a no brainer to me for Canada. We should be heavily investing in this future tech, plus the spin offs from that could be really beneficial!
Nah, I don't think so. Basically, if somebody wants Northern Canada and can hold it, they can take it if the USA isn't going to back us up.
I mean, say we have 200 drones (as if it would be more than like two) flying around out there and they encounter Russians - planes, ships, ground forces, whatever...what would you have us do? You want to engage them? Okay, then once that has started you need to sustain an effort/war with a bigger force. It's not like Puerto Rico is going to go for it, or anybody we could actually fend off. If somebody wants the North, it'll be Russia or China and I don't see what choice we have but to cede it unless our allies will step in. Us investing in drones to operate in the arctic would be a giant waste of money and theater that would only be laughed at.
They claim 30s from establishing a firing position to first shot down range, then a salvo of three shots in 15 seconds, and then 30s more to wrap up and move. That's very impressive, actually. There isn't anything else out there that fast.
Thank you for the very detailed reply!
I guess it just seems slow as I am picturing navy ships that go pew pew pew
F-35 fighter plane engines are in short supply, with the solution months away, causing the Defense Department to reduce its schedule of exhibition flights and to start planning for a shortage as soon as 2022.
The Defense Department's F-35 office has advised that about five to six percent of the U.S. F-35 fleet could be without useable engines by 2022, and up to 20 percent of the plane's fleet could be sidelined by 2025.
The U.S. Air Force’s top officer wants the service to develop an affordable, lightweight fighter to replace hundreds of Cold War-vintage F-16s and complement a small fleet of sophisticated—but costly and unreliable—stealth fighters.
Engineers can’t complete the Joint Simulation Environment facility.
Program officials continue to struggle against a tide of F-35 design flaws. Nearly every time the engineers solve one problem, a new one is discovered. The F-35 still has 871 unresolved deficiencies, only two fewer than last year.
For years, one of the biggest weaknesses of the F-35 program has been the deeply flawed maintenance and spare parts computer network called the Autonomic Logistics Information System, known as ALIS. Pentagon leaders finally admitted defeat in 2020 and pulled the plug on ALIS.
Contractors love "spiral development" as it allows them to put flawed shyte with minimal capabilities like the F-35 in the field and then get paid to fix it. Over and over and over again.
__________________
"If you do not know what you are doing, neither does your enemy."
- - Joe Tzu
The U.S. Air Force’s top officer wants the service to develop an affordable, lightweight fighter to replace hundreds of Cold War-vintage F-16s and complement a small fleet of sophisticated—but costly and unreliable—stealth fighters.
Isn't that just the plan with the F-15EX and F-16V's? Fit them out with the latest AESA and pylon racks turning them into "missile trucks"?
Should be zero risk, considering these are currently being built for export.
Isn't that just the plan with the F-15EX and F-16V's? Fit them out with the latest AESA and pylon racks turning them into "missile trucks"?
Should be zero risk, considering these are currently being built for export.
The Forbes article states that the USAF's Top Dog doesn't want to buy any more F16s; it's too difficult to upgrade their software. The last time the USAF bought an F16 was 2001. So, e wants a new fighter, designed from the ground up. Unfortunately, that's the approach they took 20 years ago with the F35 and here they are.
__________________
"If you do not know what you are doing, neither does your enemy."
- - Joe Tzu
The Following User Says Thank You to Baron von Kriterium For This Useful Post:
I would expect that if the Airforce wants a light primary fighter to replace the Viper, that it will end up following the same requirements of the F-35 however without the variants. Carrier/vertical take off.
but in terms of working in an integrated environment, max pilot awareness, stealth. They would follow the F-35 with maybe an add on of Super cruise, agility.
__________________
My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;
Then there's also its ability to kick down the door:
"The F-35 was the most effective asset in neutralizing SAM systems and absolutely essential in the timely sharing of all the specific information needed for the success of the mission.
“We knew we had an operational advantage, due to the 5th generation technology, but we didn’t expect such a high “kill” ratio: in the 16 OCA missions (Offensive Counter Air) we flew, we neutralized more than 100 SAM systems and never lost a plane,” commented Maj. Emanuele A."
I'd take any of those Red Flag stats with a grain of salt - for many reasons. I'll provide two:
1. The Aggressor Squadron is composed of Block 32 F16s, the least capable aircraft in the USAF inventory. None of these F16s are equipped with any IR search and track systems, which is the most notable air-to-air sensor threat to an F35; and
2. The Aggressor Squadron relies upon ground control interception while the friendly forces rely upon airborne early warning systems. Air controllers provide a significant advantage over ground control which puts the friendly forces at a significant advantage.
None of the above is a mark against the F35, but neither are Red Flag stats a reliable indication of performance.
__________________
"If you do not know what you are doing, neither does your enemy."
- - Joe Tzu
The Forbes article states that the USAF's Top Dog doesn't want to buy any more F16s; it's too difficult to upgrade their software. The last time the USAF bought an F16 was 2001. So, e wants a new fighter, designed from the ground up. Unfortunately, that's the approach they took 20 years ago with the F35 and here they are.
I don't know that I buy that rationale - I have to imagine that it'd be far more costly in dollars and time to do a clean sheet fighter than to update software in an F-16 going forward. Heck, this Air Force article (admittedly biased) talks about the success they had in adding AESA capabilities and 42 other major enhancements. Doesn't sound anywhere like the trainwreck that ALIS is.
Besides - that article talks about a operational gap coming in 2025 due to a lack of engines for the F-35. Nothing clean sheet is going to get done in 4 years...not even close.
Huh. Had no idea the 4th Gen planes being mopped up by f35s didn't have ir pods. I stand corrected, seems like a slanted and fruitless exercise then. Have there been wargames of f35s vs ir equipped jets that you know of?