Strap-on stealth jetplane in testing

Werner · Post by **Werner** » Wed Sep 12, 2007 4:49 pm

I'll never make fun of a strap-on again. See: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/09/12 ... al_forces/

Post by **JWintjes** » Wed Sep 12, 2007 5:04 pm

I think the article (quite funny, by the way) correctly stresses what could be a deep floor in the 178km-insertion plan - you have to get out again...

I for one am rather sceptical about all this black-ops stuff. Send Tomahawks, followed by B-1s dropping sticks of dumb bombs and Spectres to round up anything still standing. Then you can comfortly haul your special ops types to the intended target...

Jorit

Tracy White · Post by **Tracy White** » Wed Sep 12, 2007 5:29 pm

I'd like to note that the design as shown is far from stealthy... every buckle he's got is a target!

Getting the guys out again isn't as large of a concern; you can send a Pave Low / CV-22 in for extraction. Using them for insertion is less wise due to the attention they get at the point they land, but for extraction you don't care as much.

Werner · Post by **Werner** » Wed Sep 12, 2007 5:58 pm

Tracy White wrote:I'd like to note that the design as shown is far from stealthy... every buckle he's got is a target!

Unless they're polycarbonate.

He could even have one of those ugly plastic Glock guns.

Tracy White · Post by **Tracy White** » Wed Sep 12, 2007 6:07 pm

Which they aren't in this case; it's conventional metal.

I'm not saying it couldn't be stealthy, just that the current design is not. An operator wanting to be stealthy would need to wear a stealth suit that either had no metal or had good, reliable RAM over the metal fittings. I don't think they've been able to put that thing on a radar range yet.

ar · Post by ar » Wed Sep 12, 2007 7:49 pm

Could it not have plasma shielding?
Whispers that I have heard.

Tracy White wrote:Which they aren't in this case; it's conventional metal.

I'm not saying it couldn't be stealthy, just that the current design is not. An operator wanting to be stealthy would need to wear a stealth suit that either had no metal or had good, reliable RAM over the metal fittings. I don't think they've been able to put that thing on a radar range yet.

Post by **JWintjes** » Thu Sep 13, 2007 3:24 am

ar wrote:Could it not have plasma shielding?
Whispers that I have heard.

Nah, that wouldn't work with with the flux compensator installed, or so I was told...

Jorit

Post by **JWintjes** » Thu Sep 13, 2007 3:26 am

Tracy White wrote: Getting the guys out again isn't as large of a concern; you can send a Pave Low / CV-22 in for extraction. Using them for insertion is less wise due to the attention they get at the point they land, but for extraction you don't care as much.

You still have then 170 miles of bandit country in front of you - potentially with a lot of triple A around.

I must say paving the way, so to say, still seems to be the better option to me...

Jorit

Werner · Post by **Werner** » Thu Sep 13, 2007 8:46 am

JWintjes wrote:I must say paving the way, so to say, still seems to be the better option to me...

You mean like this?

Incidentally, the US has proven over and over again that it can fly missions into "Indian country" and drop teams or supplies. This happened in Gulf I and II, and also in other places with reasonable frequency.

Post by **Cadman** » Thu Sep 13, 2007 9:31 am

I think I would prefer a version that you are on the top side. Just in case the parachute doesn't deploy and you have to make a BELLY landing.

Post by **JWintjes** » Thu Sep 13, 2007 10:20 am

Werner wrote:
JWintjes wrote:I must say paving the way, so to say, still seems to be the better option to me...
You mean like this?

Actually, I was more thinking into showering with this one:

Of course, that might just be an option as well:

Incidentally, the US has proven over and over again that it can fly missions into "Indian country" and drop teams or supplies. This happened in Gulf I and II, and also in other places with reasonable frequency.

Of course.

But I love the pyrotechnics, you see...

Jorit

Tracy White · Post by **Tracy White** » Thu Sep 13, 2007 8:14 pm

You must like the Father of all Bombs then.

Werner · Post by **Werner** » Thu Sep 13, 2007 8:31 pm

Yeah, 15,000 pound FAE. Terrific. Great, cheap way to make up for the lack of your own GPS. Imagine the collateral damage.

Such a colossal weapon could only be delivered if you have air superiority, against buildings and similar structures, or larger formations of infantry on foot. Where would Russia possibly find use for such a weapon?

Oh, yeah. Break-away Republics (hint, hint).

This is from the "make the bomb big enough and you don't even have to transport it" school of arms.

Tracy White · Post by **Tracy White** » Thu Sep 13, 2007 8:36 pm

I liked the BLU-81s as "instant LZs" in the jungle and big mine sweepers in the desert.

I'm not sure that the FOABs is a FAE, but if so its use may peeve those who advocate the Geneva Convention.

Werner · Post by **Werner** » Thu Sep 13, 2007 8:40 pm

The Beeb says it is...

Trust the Russian mindset to be not particularly concerned with civilian casualties or collateral damage. This is at a time when the USAF and USN have quite literally turned to dropping "bricks" (concrete shaped like a bomb with a GPS system attached) in Iraq to protect civilians and their property.

Tracy White · Post by **Tracy White** » Thu Sep 13, 2007 10:07 pm

Of course; the Russians aren't seen as a beacon of good in the world so they don't get thumped on as much when they do kill the inconvenients.

We used Thermobarics in Afghanistan
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ ... lu-118.htm (Warning - Pop-ups galore!)

Werner · Post by **Werner** » Thu Sep 13, 2007 10:12 pm

Tracy White wrote:Of course; the Russians aren't seen as a beacon of good in the world so they don't get thumped on as much when they do kill the inconvenients.

We used Thermobarics in Afghanistan
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ ... lu-118.htm (Warning - Pop-ups galore!)

Yes, we used them in a cave. The population density of Afghanistan compares more favorably with Alaska than Chechnya....

Incidentally, the Navy tested it against a decommissioned frigate. Apart from some impressive photos and antenna damage, it really didn't do much to the ship. I imagine it would have swept the deck of people, though.

Use Firefox with AdBlockPlus. It's so effective Google has threatened to stop it's partnership with Mozilla.

Post by **JWintjes** » Fri Sep 14, 2007 4:51 am

Werner wrote: Such a colossal weapon could only be delivered if you have air superiority, against buildings and similar structures, or larger formations of infantry on foot. Where would Russia possibly find use for such a weapon?

Let's see, they are Russians.

Well, judging from past experience I'd say they use it to support their own troops in close quarter house-to-house fighting...

Jorit

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Fri Sep 14, 2007 11:51 am

JWintjes wrote:
Werner wrote: Such a colossal weapon could only be delivered if you have air superiority, against buildings and similar structures, or larger formations of infantry on foot. Where would Russia possibly find use for such a weapon?
Let's see, they are Russians.

Well, judging from past experience I'd say they use it to support their own troops in close quarter house-to-house fighting...

Jorit

Unlike with some other countries that reflexively drop to one knee whenever "our own fighting men" are mentioned, the Russians do not shy away from the hard fact that it is sometimes one's own cannon fodder which are the the most inconvenient in a combat situation. Such realism is one benefit of having a peasant/serf system until 1918.

Werner · Post by **Werner** » Fri Sep 14, 2007 12:05 pm

Russian generals are going to find it harder to control public opinion than in times past. Using this thing against a breakaway republic is going to generate the kind of international outrage that garners a general a short walk in the birches behind the hill. Even killing the reporters no longer works effectively.

I'll give them credit... the press adored the explosion, even if it was larger than the sub-kiloton warheads the US is developing (and being roundly condemned by the media) for the Hard Target Penetrator.