John Kettler Posted April 20, 2006 Share Posted April 20, 2006 Teaser showed Javelin?, weapons that fire around corners, Land Warrior type systems, etc. and what may've been the canceled Crusader sustem. Looked potentially worthwhile. Regards, John Kettler 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Kettler Posted April 20, 2006 Author Share Posted April 20, 2006 Debrief follows. Segments covered the Javelin, the Israeli CORNERSHOT, the PanzerHaubitze 2000 and the JSF. The Javelin segment alone was worth all the time I spent watching the whole show: cutaways, interviews with the chief engineer, firing signature, trajectories, combat effectiveness (SF in Iraq destroyed 19 Iraqi AFVs), capability vs.ERA, multiple live fires (including one the host attended), weapon operation, to include IR sights and magnification options. The CORNERSHOT has a hinged section which can accommodate weapons up through 40mm grenade launcher, coupled to two video cameras and a popout display. The host, a former SEAL, found it very helpful for snooping and pooping, MOUT, CQB, etc. The gun's developer did thirty years in the IDF as a combat leader. CORNERSHOT feature and animation here http://www.fadedempire.co.uk/firepower/ The PanzerHaubitze 2000 has the capabilities and range (40 km) of the canceled Crusader system, an ROF of 10 r.p.m., and a 5 round TOT capability from a single gun. Can shoot and have gun in travel lock 30 seconds later. Top speed's 40 mph. It's considered the most advanced artillery weapon on the planet. Stunning firepower from a single battery! The JSF piece was nothing short of amazing in terms of technical content. Had no idea it could carry 2 x 2000 lb class weapons internally (up to 15,000 lbs externally in more permissive environment). That wasn't the amazing part; they discussed how a system of cameras provides spherical visual coverage to the pilot, this coupled with sensor fusion from radar, ESM, satellite uplinks and downlinks. The simulator would give any gamer a heart attack; it was so impressive, and the host got to fly a simulated strike mission. There were several boners, though. The B-1B wasn't even mentioned as a Stealth platform, and the Stealth Fighter that was downed over Yugoslavia was mistakenly IDed as the Stealth Bomber. Regards, John Kettler There [ April 20, 2006, 11:18 PM: Message edited by: John Kettler ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SgtMuhammed Posted April 20, 2006 Share Posted April 20, 2006 One reason the B1B might not have been mentioned is that as it developed away from prototype and into production it lost much of its stealth. The engines are almost totally non-stealthy. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Kettler Posted April 20, 2006 Author Share Posted April 20, 2006 sgtgoody (esq), Speaking as someone who did analyses of B-1B survivability in a high threat environment, I can assure you that compared to the B-52 it was originally intended to replace, the B-1B is a huge reduction in radar cross section--by several orders of magnitude--with attendant drops in detection range vs. hostile radar and also power required for jammers to protect the B-1B. I believe the the B-1B engines are S-trunked so the blade faces can't be seen by radar. Certainly, the IR signature has been greatly reduced as well. Regards, John Kettler 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dirtweasle Posted April 20, 2006 Share Posted April 20, 2006 Is this show part of a series? I caught a brief glimpse of a review and though it looked like a new series... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Cairns Posted April 20, 2006 Share Posted April 20, 2006 The JSF looks great in these shows but all this doesn't coms cheap I've seen various estimates of the base line unit cost rising from $40m to as much as $100m. Given that you can buy a Korean T-50 which in it's "A" configuration is an 80% svale F-16, which will do most of the run of the mill jobs as well as most airforces need, for about $20m, just how many JSF's will the US be able to export and what will that do to the final unit price. Like the B1B and the PH2000 these are hugely impressive, but also hugely expensive, and pretty much useless in Iraq or afghanistan, so is it money well spent and can we afford it. Pricy though it is compared to the T-72's it's to take out the Javelin at least makes sense. Sure it doesn't have the cost ratio of an RPG-7 to an M1A2, byt it's a good way to take out something you can expect to meet. A single C-17 (costing $300m) can transport a single M1A2 ($5m), but in a Kiowa you can transport 10 Javelins and 100 rounds and combined they probably cost less than the M1A2. So even if I am in danger of being portrayed as a typical Scotsman, obsessed with what things cost, I just don't see the value of a lot of this high tech stuff, given current and even future challenges. Peter. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Imperial Grunt Posted April 20, 2006 Share Posted April 20, 2006 Originally posted by Peter Cairns: The JSF looks great in these shows but all this doesn't coms cheap I've seen various estimates of the base line unit cost rising from $40m to as much as $100m. Given that you can buy a Korean T-50 which in it's "A" configuration is an 80% svale F-16, which will do most of the run of the mill jobs as well as most airforces need, for about $20m, just how many JSF's will the US be able to export and what will that do to the final unit price. Like the B1B and the PH2000 these are hugely impressive, but also hugely expensive, and pretty much useless in Iraq or afghanistan, so is it money well spent and can we afford it. Pricy though it is compared to the T-72's it's to take out the Javelin at least makes sense. Sure it doesn't have the cost ratio of an RPG-7 to an M1A2, byt it's a good way to take out something you can expect to meet. A single C-17 (costing $300m) can transport a single M1A2 ($5m), but in a Kiowa you can transport 10 Javelins and 100 rounds and combined they probably cost less than the M1A2. So even if I am in danger of being portrayed as a typical Scotsman, obsessed with what things cost, I just don't see the value of a lot of this high tech stuff, given current and even future challenges. Peter. Hmmm...you know, all the fans of the M-1903 Springfield service rifle said all that about the experimental M-1 Garand rifle before WWII. Same logic of cost and not much perceived gain. Sure the cost ratio is alot more for a F-16A than for JSF, but once the JSF is online, it will be a good thing. A military that chooses to remain stagnant and not invest in the latest cutting edge tech will be overtaken. There is no reason for the US to deploy a force somewhere in the world and then fight at near-equal odds. The odds need to be stacked in the US's favor as much as possible. Especially for that war with China over Taiwan. War and the security of a nation is not all about bean-counting costs. Its about being able to project power and winning and not paying too high of a price to win. And the US does not have the luxury of simply configuring its entire military to fight the War on Terror. It has to be prepared for anything that may affect the Nation's strategic interests. I am sure the planners looking at Iran are wishing for a few squadrons of JSFs on all of the carrier battle groups, F-22s, as well as the latest and greatest TLAMs loaded on board more SeaWolf subs. Having a few of the DDX ships would be nice as well. As far as the cost ratio of an RPG-7 or an M-1 tank goes, which weapon system would you feel more comfortable with if you went to battle tomorrow? I do not think you would worry much about the cost of the tank, the fuel, ammo, etc...or the industrial military complex that invented the M-1 tank in the first place. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SgtMuhammed Posted April 21, 2006 Share Posted April 21, 2006 John, Radar reflectors are stealthy compared to the Buff. You don't even have to turn your transmitter on to get a return. I know the B1 has a greatly reduced radar cross section but most of the pilots I talked to complained of the returns from the engines. Then again the B1 was designed for an entirely different attack pattern than the B2, at least originally. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Kettler Posted April 21, 2006 Author Share Posted April 21, 2006 Dirtweasle, It's not only a new series, but the next episode will cover the Barrett .50 cal. sniper rifle, among other topics. The teaser showed impressive anitmateriel capability. sgtgoody (esq), I defer to your sources, seeing as how I'm working from faint memory here. The B-1 was originally designed for high altitude supersonic penetration. The development of increasingly capable Soviet air defenses forced both the B-52 and the B-1 to the deck, but that meant redesigning the B-1 to the B-1B, subsonic with special canards for low altitude ops. Regards, John Kettler 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dirtweasle Posted April 21, 2006 Share Posted April 21, 2006 Originally posted by John Kettler: ...the next episode will cover the Barrett .50 cal. sniper rifle, among other topics. The teaser showed impressive anitmateriel capability. Yep, I think that is the preview I caught a little bit of. Thanks for heads up, I'll have to remember to set my DVR for this series. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Imperial Grunt Posted April 21, 2006 Share Posted April 21, 2006 Originally posted by Dirtweasle: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by John Kettler: ...the next episode will cover the Barrett .50 cal. sniper rifle, among other topics. The teaser showed impressive anitmateriel capability. Yep, I think that is the preview I caught a little bit of. Thanks for heads up, I'll have to remember to set my DVR for this series. </font> 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moronic Max Posted April 21, 2006 Share Posted April 21, 2006 Meh. I wanna see some kinetic harpoons deployed in orbit if we're gonna talk about future weapons. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flamingknives Posted April 21, 2006 Share Posted April 21, 2006 Harpoons? Like this? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Cairns Posted April 21, 2006 Share Posted April 21, 2006 As often said, "You need three things to fight a war, money money and more money", and if there was an endless supply of it that would be fine. But it's all about Opportunity cost, expressing things you purchase in terms of what you could have purcghased instead. If you can refurbish five F-16's and keep them going for 20more years for the cost of a JSF, and they will still do the job just as well, then it's a better use of finite resources. If there was any real evidence that someone was going to come up with something that could take out an F-15E in the next ten years then fine, bt there isn't. Whether it be, India's LCA, China's L-15 or FC-1, The Iranian, Shafal(?) or the proposed Mig/SU light fighter, everthing comming up is in the F-16 for export class. The only real threat is from variations of the SU-27, a no one has any plans to build or acquire them in numbers to match tthe current US F-15 fleet. let alone it plus Europe Typhoons. Film of up and coming new high tech weapons,is fine for entertainment, but I can't help thinking that the manufacturers are the ones driving this more than actual need and that US tax payers are getting ripped of buying stuff that is far more expensive than they actually need. The which would you rather have line is Okay, but it's a bit like that "buy your wife an SUV, so she'll be safe if there's a crash when taking the kids to school three suburban blocks away". In reality few drivers ever get killed on the school run, as car crashes in the suburbs tend to be low speed bumps, and the biggest killer is kids getting hit by cars, with the highest chance of fatality, yep you guessed getting hit by a "Safe" SUV. Peter. Peter. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Imperial Grunt Posted April 21, 2006 Share Posted April 21, 2006 I guess that I am just a believer in overkill. Like why take a knife to a knife fight? Bring a gun. And not any gun, like a .38 snub-nose revolver. Bring something that is alot more expensive than your average knife made in China, like this problem solver and almost certian knife-fight winner: 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Imperial Grunt Posted April 21, 2006 Share Posted April 21, 2006 Which way to that guy with the knife? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Cairns Posted April 22, 2006 Share Posted April 22, 2006 "Missouri Breaks", Jack Nicholson (Rustler) to Marlon Brando ( Bounty Hunter), as Brando opens his eyes from sleeping by a camp fire, "and if your wondering what that noise is it's you, cos I just cut your throat". Peter. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Kettler Posted April 22, 2006 Author Share Posted April 22, 2006 Lt Col West, And don't I know it! You see, my father got to tour the Barrett factory in Arkansas back in the 80s and was regaled with stories of Marine snipers taking out the opposition in Lebanon by firing through the walls which normally made great cover vs. .308 and 5.56mm fire. Since no head was exploding on screen, though, I thought I'd simply describe the clip. Also, the antimateriel application was important in the last war. AIUI, some radars got rude, abrupt, feedhorn mods! Regards, John Kettler 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Cairns Posted April 30, 2006 Share Posted April 30, 2006 A short trawl of the net and you will see a testiment to the Barret..... Almost every nation, from the Russians to the Chinese, now makes an 0.5 (or even 14.5mm) anti-material rifle. So don't get carried away with what it can do, as it's as likely to happen to you as you do it to them. Peter. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.