Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Not to mention less costly :woot.gif:

If I was a grunt on the ground with a Harrier inbound to provide support, I would be a bit more concerned with accuracy and a bit less on cost. I am well aware that today's avionics can do wonders for the accuracy of a dumb bomb but that still can't come close to the consistency and accuracy of a GPS guided munition.

Dumb bombs are great for carpet bombing enemy formations like in the first gulf war but today when friendly and civilian causalties are such a huge issue, I am just suprised to see them still in use. Oh well, as long as HM government is saving a few pounds :thumbsup:

The US has the same avionics in their F-16's, F-18's and A-10's but you don't seem them using dumb bombs for CAS anymore. For that matter, I am surprised to see the rocket pods still in use. Rockets (even the CRV-7's) have notorious dispersion. That Harrier loadout (minus the sniper pod) would be more appropriate for a 1960's Hunter or F-100.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, at the risk of offending all our trans-atlantic cousins, if I was a Tommy on the ground I'd be a darn sight more worried about whether that CAS aircraft was wearing roundels or stars and bars than whether it was carrying smart or dumb bombs. US aircraft caused us more casualties than all of Saddam's forces in Gulf I and it looked like it was happening again at the start of Gulf II. When was the last time anyone heard about a blue-on-blue by the RAF. Even given the vastly greater numbers of US aircraft I reckon plane for plane the RAF have had fewer 'unfortunate mishaps'.

Link to post
Share on other sites
If I was a grunt on the ground with a Harrier inbound to provide support, I would be a bit more concerned with accuracy and a bit less on cost. I am well aware that today's avionics can do wonders for the accuracy of a dumb bomb but that still can't come close to the consistency and accuracy of a GPS guided munition.

Dumb bombs are great for carpet bombing enemy formations like in the first gulf war but today when friendly and civilian causalties are such a huge issue, I am just suprised to see them still in use. Oh well, as long as HM government is saving a few pounds :)

The US has the same avionics in their F-16's, F-18's and A-10's but you don't seem them using dumb bombs for CAS anymore. For that matter, I am surprised to see the rocket pods still in use. Rockets (even the CRV-7's) have notorious dispersion. That Harrier loadout (minus the sniper pod) would be more appropriate for a 1960's Hunter or F-100.

Not to open a can of worm's here but the US,with all the sophisticated weaponry & guidace systems, have a far higher rate of blue-on-blue & civilian casualties than we do with our dumb bomb's & unguided rockets.A lot of US weapons are'nt compatable with the Stores Management Systems on our current aircraft & we simply dont have the budget to do anything about it.

Unfortunatly,our current government is more concerned with running the county into the ground & sleaze than little things like defence:

http://www.newsoftheworld.co.uk/news/29935...shing-line.html

Link to post
Share on other sites
If I was a grunt on the ground with a Harrier inbound to provide support, I would be a bit more concerned with accuracy and a bit less on cost. I am well aware that today's avionics can do wonders for the accuracy of a dumb bomb but that still can't come close to the consistency and accuracy of a GPS guided munition.

Dumb bombs are great for carpet bombing enemy formations like in the first gulf war but today when friendly and civilian causalties are such a huge issue, I am just suprised to see them still in use. Oh well, as long as HM government is saving a few pounds :)

The US has the same avionics in their F-16's, F-18's and A-10's but you don't seem them using dumb bombs for CAS anymore. For that matter, I am surprised to see the rocket pods still in use. Rockets (even the CRV-7's) have notorious dispersion. That Harrier loadout (minus the sniper pod) would be more appropriate for a 1960's Hunter or F-100.

You'd better read Ade Orchad 's book, Joint Force Harrier.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The 25mm gun story is even more of a tale of woe than Spike alludes to - once had a chat with one of the guys on the project and he said that BAE finally got it to work effectively, only for the MOD to cancel it as a cost saving measure as, following GWI, their view of the future of the Harrier was as a medium level bomber who didn't need a strafing capability!!!

Link to post
Share on other sites
The US has the same avionics in their F-16's, F-18's and A-10's but you don't seem them using dumb bombs for CAS anymore. For that matter, I am surprised to see the rocket pods still in use. Rockets (even the CRV-7's) have notorious dispersion. That Harrier loadout (minus the sniper pod) would be more appropriate for a 1960's Hunter or F-100.

Actually, the US and other NATO members use quite a lot of dumb bombs. The reason is that not all targets require precision munition in order to take it out. That is why both Mk 82's and CRV and other unguided ordinance is still much in use, leaving the guided bombs for high value targets or to reduce collateral damage.

Despite what most of us feel in terms of giving the armed forces the necessary tools to do the job, you still have to think about money.

If taking out various targets can be achieved by carrying a mixed load of ordinance, then so it will be.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Well, at the risk of offending all our trans-atlantic cousins, if I was a Tommy on the ground I'd be a darn sight more worried about whether that CAS aircraft was wearing roundels or stars and bars than whether it was carrying smart or dumb bombs. US aircraft caused us more casualties than all of Saddam's forces in Gulf I and it looked like it was happening again at the start of Gulf II. When was the last time anyone heard about a blue-on-blue by the RAF. Even given the vastly greater numbers of US aircraft I reckon plane for plane the RAF have had fewer 'unfortunate mishaps'.

I guess you're right, the record of both of your planes in theater is outstanding. All kidding aside, those blue on blue incidents are terrible. However, things like this happen in war. I would hazard a guess that if the RAF was flying anywhere near the same number of sorties as the US, they might not have the record that they currently have. Anyway, if you are looking to be 100% perfect, using dumb bombs and unguided rockets (IMHO) is not the way to keep that record unblemished. The point to my first post was this - Afghanistan is pretty much a Close Air Support type of conflict. There are no (or certainly not many) fixed targets out there. Most of the airstrikes are supporting troops in contact. I just found it surprising that the Harrier show in the first posting did not have a single precision weapon mounted on it.

Edited by 11bee
Link to post
Share on other sites

All of the blue on blue incidents in Iraq and Afghanistan have had nothing to do with weapons accuracy (the pilot trying to hit the enemy and missing and hitting friendlies). They all hit the target they were going for - it was target misidentification, not weapons accuracy that caused the incidents.

That's what makes CAS so difficult - distinguishing friendlies vs enemy.

I'm not arguing against precision weapons - I would always prefer precision weps over unguided.

Link to post
Share on other sites
All of the blue on blue incidents in Iraq and Afghanistan have had nothing to do with weapons accuracy (the pilot trying to hit the enemy and missing and hitting friendlies). They all hit the target they were going for - it was target misidentification, not weapons accuracy that caused the incidents.

That's what makes CAS so difficult - distinguishing friendlies vs enemy.

So true, so true!

Historically looking, the blue-on-blue incidents has fallen proportionally as war fighting systems have improved. If you look at blue-on-blue during WW2 compared to today, they are just about extinct.

Doesn't mean we should accept those insidents that happen, just trying to highlight the development that has been and is going on to prevent such.

Link to post
Share on other sites
All of the blue on blue incidents in Iraq and Afghanistan have had nothing to do with weapons accuracy (the pilot trying to hit the enemy and missing and hitting friendlies). They all hit the target they were going for - it was target misidentification, not weapons accuracy that caused the incidents.

That's what makes CAS so difficult - distinguishing friendlies vs enemy.

I'm not arguing against precision weapons - I would always prefer precision weps over unguided.

I know of 3 Royal Anglian 'Vikings' soldiers KIA in Afghnistan when an F15 dropped it's weapon too close to them that would disagree with you.

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I know of 3 Royal Anglian 'Vikings' soldiers KIA in Afghnistan when an F15 dropped it's weapon too close to them that would disagree with you.

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk.

That doesn't appear to have anything to do with the weapons accuracy. The bomb hit exactly where the pilot was aiming. In that case it looks like the pilot either misidentifed the target or was called in to strike too close to the friendly position.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Probably dumb question, what is a CRV-7 pod?

Chuck

Canadian designed rocket system replaced SNEB.

Six Shot Launcher plus rocket (Dummy)

CRV7TrainingPod.jpg

19 Shot Launcher with frangable Nose Cone

CRV7Pod.jpg

If I remember the pod is set before take of to salvo so many or ripple the whole pod. Often they set the Six Shot to single fire for aiming before letting rip with the other POD. Also the 6 shot is more easily reloaded in the field.

Julien

Edited by Julien (UK)
Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't forget that Paveway IV has replaced the 540lb free fallers on RAF Harriers in Afghanistan over the past few months. Think that a dual-mode GPS/Laser guided 500lb class weapon with various fuse settings and pilot selectable desired impact angle is probably as good a tool for CAS as you'll find anywhere to be honest!

Julien, from speaking to a guy at Cottesmore who I presumed to be in the know, the GR9 avionics mods apparently gave the pilot the ability to pre-select the numbers of CRV-7 rockets to be fired in any particular attack run with a single trigger press (from a single rocket per trigger pull, through to two full 19 shot pods with most combinations in between), rather than requiring that the pods are hard wired as they needed to be for the Gr7/gr7a.

You'll notice the Gr7 load was typically 2 different pods - 1x 6 shot round, hard wired to single shots, and a 19 shot pod for firing in a salvo. The Gr9 carries 2 19 shot pods as the pilot can now precisely select the number of shots to be fired from the cockpit :salute:

Edited by Will2K65
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...