AC-130 Spectre

[ncc1701e]

On 10/11/2018 at 6:07 AM, MikeyD said:

Because they have the capacity to be scenario enders. You saturate the far side of the map with artillery rockets at startup and... well, that was a fun scenario.

Yes exactly. That why I said initially "Would it be too easy for US player if he has one in its inventory ?" I do think so.

12 hours ago, IICptMillerII said:

First off, the idea that using these assets against "primitive" insurgents being wasteful is wrong. Yes, these assets are expensive. You know what is infinitely more expensive? Human lives lost doing a job a Tomahawk/F-18 can do risk free

Yes, it remember me something I have seen on TV about Afghanistan. At a given point in the documentary, a sniper was eliminated by a Javelin missile.

[Vet 0369]

Well, the best way to eliminate a sniper is with another sniper, but when you don't have a sniper, you use any other asset that you can.

[db_zero]

1 hour ago, Vet 0369 said:

You wouldn't believe how deep the animosity is not only among services, but also among programs within those services. For example, it's unbelievable how many times the Airforce "Fighter Mafia" tried to have the A-10 scrapped so they could get that funding for their own programs. Before I went to work with the government, outside of my military time, I worked for an aircraft engine manufacturer. A friend, who was a government plant representative, invited me to attend a meeting he had set up to try to develop a "Joint Services Engine Specification." Even though the Navy and the Airforce or the Navy and the Army might used the same engines in their fighters and helicopters, each service has it's own engine specification. The initiative failed though because the Army and Airforce representatives spent the entire time arguing about the Key West Accords of 1948, and this meeting took place in 1988!

Oh I can believe it. 

Anyway we’ve gone way OT

Back to AC-130

Edited October 12, 2018 by db_zero

[Michael Emrys]

6 hours ago, Vet 0369 said:

Well, the best way to eliminate a sniper is with another sniper, but when you don't have a sniper, you use any other asset that you can.

In the Falkland Islands war, British Paras were using Milan ATMs against infantry positions. Like you say, you use whatever is at hand that will do the job. They had been lugging these missiles all over the island and the Argentines had no tanks, so...

Michael

[LukeFF]

edit: N/M

Edited October 13, 2018 by LukeFF

[domfluff]

On 10/12/2018 at 11:37 PM, Michael Emrys said:

In the Falkland Islands war, British Paras were using Milan ATMs against infantry positions. Like you say, you use whatever is at hand that will do the job. They had been lugging these missiles all over the island and the Argentines had no tanks, so...

Michael

"Don't Cry for Me Sergeant Major" has it that they were referred to them as "Bungalows", since each missile was the price of a small house...

[domfluff]

Naturally, Javelins can and are used in anti-fortification (or anti-building) roles as well, both in reality and in CMSF.

[Michael Emrys]

4 hours ago, domfluff said:

Naturally, Javelins can and are used in anti-fortification (or anti-building) roles as well, both in reality and in CMSF.

And I have seen Bradleys in the game fire TOWs at buildings to take out pesky knots of resistance, much to my pleasure.

Michael

[Erwin]

On 10/12/2018 at 9:21 AM, ncc1701e said:

Yes exactly. That why I said initially "Would it be too easy for US player if he has one in its inventory ?" I do think so.

Yes, it remember me something I have seen on TV about Afghanistan. At a given point in the documentary, a sniper was eliminated by a Javelin missile.

Probably happened several times.  I recall a documentary that showed a Brit patrol eliminating a sniper position.

The problem with using "everything you got" vs an enemy is that it ignores the very real issue of economics.  Not even the US can afford to eliminate all (essentially unlimited) "stone-age" enemy threats with multimillion dollar weapon systems.  Of course the defense contractors would love to have everyone believe that this mismatch is the way to go as they make billions thanks to your tax dollars.

The question is, even after deploying all these multi-zillion dollar assets, are we closer to winning?   

A thought... If we took all the money we burn thru with these weapons systems and used it to simply bribe the enemy to go back to farming (or to kill each other) would that be more economical in the long run?   

 

[Lethaface]

14 minutes ago, Erwin said:

A thought... If we took all the money we burn thru with these weapons systems and used it to simply bribe the enemy to go back to farming (or to kill each other) would that be more economical in the long run?   

Emmmmm, no. They'll just demand more money. It might me more prudent to have a more realistic political vision coupled with a realistic military occupation plan before we do the invading part. 

One thing you'd have to give the Russians is that they have reached their political goals by applying military force (Georgia, Ukraine, Syria). At least more so than the US / West has. Just look at Iraq and Afghanistan, don't even mention Libya. Now about the ethics, that's a different question although one can debate the ethics of what we are achieving, or trying to achieve, in Afghanistan. 

[Ultradave]

13 minutes ago, Lethaface said:

Emmmmm, no. They'll just demand more money. It might me more prudent to have a more realistic political vision coupled with a realistic military occupation plan before we do the invading part. 

One thing you'd have to give the Russians is that they have reached their political goals by applying military force (Georgia, Ukraine, Syria). At least more so than the US / West has. Just look at Iraq and Afghanistan, don't even mention Libya. Now about the ethics, that's a different question although one can debate the ethics of what we are achieving, or trying to achieve, in Afghanistan. 

Read the history of England (it wasn't England then), when year after year the Danes and Saxons invaded, pillaged, murdered and looted. EVERY YEAR, the British (for lack of a better term) would pay them large amounts of silver to go away and not come back, and baptize many (presumably and Christian would not break his word). EVERY YEAR, they came back again to do the same thing over and over again, year after year.

I have a book "Defending the Island" that I bought in England. It's well written, however, I've never finished it because the endless cycles of death and destruction and payoff just got so depressing to read.

[Erwin]

6 minutes ago, Ultradave said:

EVERY YEAR, they came back again to do the same thing over and over again, year after year.

Until GB became the greatest empire the world has even seen lol.   

[Michael Emrys]

28 minutes ago, Lethaface said:

Just look at...Afghanistan...

Yes, let's look at Afghanistan. The Soviets invaded 1979 and I don't recall that that went too well for them. After a long, bloody, expensive (the international press referred to it as Russia's Vietnam) war, they finally pulled out. The lesson is: think twice and  then think twice again before jumping into Asian wars.

Michael

[Lethaface]

2 minutes ago, Michael Emrys said:

The lesson is: think twice and  then think twice again before jumping into occupational wars.

Michael

Here I corrected that for you ;-).

Regarding the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, it's a good point although I was referring to more recent endeavors. Before the Soviets I recall the English had some troubles with Afghanistan as well, although one must go back much further for that.
Anyway, I think we (almost) all agree that just throwing money against it doesn't solve any problems. That is, unless you gave it all to me. Than all problems would go away. I promise!

[Lethaface]

26 minutes ago, Ultradave said:

Read the history of England (it wasn't England then), when year after year the Danes and Saxons invaded, pillaged, murdered and looted. EVERY YEAR, the British (for lack of a better term) would pay them large amounts of silver to go away and not come back, and baptize many (presumably and Christian would not break his word). EVERY YEAR, they came back again to do the same thing over and over again, year after year.

I have a book "Defending the Island" that I bought in England. It's well written, however, I've never finished it because the endless cycles of death and destruction and payoff just got so depressing to read.

While I have read some about it, I don't know a whole lot. It is 'funny' to see the that some aspects of humanity didn't really change over all those years. 

[John Kettler]

Speaking from the perspective of someone who was directly involved in the AC-130U Spooky (my department, Operations Analysis at Rockwell, came up with the weapon configuration and related items for Lockheed-Martin, and a colleague and I did the Threat Lay Down), the latest incarnation of the AC-130, officially, the bird is designed for what are known as "permissive environments." Though from a civilian perspective that might seem to mean "anything goes," but what it really means is that there's no real threat (hence, permissive)  to operating this devastating but also vulnerable aircraft. Yes, it has missile warning systems, ECM and dispensers for chaff and flares, maybe even hard kill IRCM, but they operate the AC-130s mostly at night for good reasons. Sure, night and bad WX cloak it, but also because our various night vision and targeting sensors allow us to locate the foe more easily than in daylight because of thermal contrast, place fire so accurately the 40 mm can put a shot through a specific window in a building. The 105 mm howitzer can wreck a tank or anything smaller, while the 25 mm Vulcan is even more damaging and has greater reach than the previous 20 mm Vulcan. Believe, too, there's been work on arming Spooky with Hellfire and other fun stuff. I adore the A-10, but it simply can't do what the Spectre or Spooky can do when it comes to what is frankly intimate CAS, made possible by the plane's combined big picture perspective, SA, RSTA, combat persistence and tailored firepower. This is precisely why these aircraft are Spec Ops assets, being the quintessential support for SOF troops in trouble, particularly if deep in hostile territory with no FA support.

Regards,

John Kettler

 

[db_zero]

I downloaded the SF2 Demo and playing the training mission. A hidden sniper in one of the building hits one of my soldiers. 2 squads pour fire on the snipers position. Then one of the soldiers fires a Javelin and blows the entire side of the facing second floor where the sniper fire was coming from. 4 or 5 Jihadis come rushing out the first floor scurrying to another building.

Pretty cool to watch.