The Military Thread

It isn't really going to badly hinder an AC-130. Things like marking with smoke or strobe are still done. The gunship can use its EO kit just fine jamming or not. I doubt it was an AC-130. Jamming an AC-130 is simply not worth noting at all.

From the video it seems like he's talking about AC-130s. Jamming would affect them more than it would affect an EC-130, and the command he's in charge of operates EC-130s and not AC-130s.

I have to disagree especially given the fact of what he is commanding. No it wouldn't be all that bad for an AC-130. It simply is not a requisite for it to be functional. Again they can and do use alternate methods of marking targets including painting with lasers, smoke, and strobe. They can easily use their EO equipment to not only spot friendlies marking targets but see IR strobes and designators. An AC-130 is hardly impacted by jamming at all outside of their radios. By comparison an EC-130 is heavily reliant on all of its signal kit to function. Jamming its transmission and reception gear is a significantly greater impact than jamming an AC-130 which is far more reliant on it's visual systems than anything else. Just because it can snoop on jamming doesn't mean it still can't be negatively affected by said jamming. Successful jamming effectively shuts down the bulk of its tools.

edited 25th Apr '18 7:30:00 PM by TuefelHundenIV

AC-130s lean pretty heavily on their communications equipment too, though, especially their Link 16 these days. Loss of that was cited as one of the key factors in probably the most high-profile AC-130 incident in recent memory, the hospital attack in Kunduz. And not just AC-130s, the B-1 incident in 2014 also came down to issues with using strobes in absence of datalinks.

Depending on the scenario a jamming attack could absolutely cause an AC-130 to hold back on a strike. Lack of contact with ground forces could disrupt the CAS process from the very beginning, and with just optical sights there's a great amount of uncertainty. Not that a strike wouldn't be possible, but it would definitely make them think twice.

Its more a question of degrading performance than stopping an attack altogether.

Archcon: Except the claim about that being at fault for the attack on the hospital was complete bullshit. The US even admitted the rules of engagement were broken on purpose and shrugged and did nothing about it. The hospital was not only appropriately marked on the roof but the US commanders were well aware of its location and who was in it. It is also rather suspiciously convenient that it just so happened to contain an injured insurgent commander who was being treated by the doctors at the time of said strike. Frankly I call BS on that affair as did a lot of people and with good reason. The weapons systems on the AC-130 are not reliant on radio traffic at all they are almost exclusively using visual targeting systems.

The B1 strike is just as suspicious for similar reasons. The US has a well documented track record of using excessive force and sloppy adherence to ROE for support as well as deliberately targeting militants regardless of potential civilian casualties. The likelihood the B-1 accidentally hit what it hit is even lower than the AC-130.

My point still stands. An AC-130 is barely affected in its ability to fight by jamming and being jammed is not notable for common radio kit. Again we have a man who commands EC-130's reporting on Jamming of an EC-130 which is a far more significant event because of the crafts high end EW equipment and reliance on being able to send and receive signals in the first place. Not being able to do that significantly hampers its ability to perform its mission to the point it may as well be pulled back.

I made a mistake in an earlier post, SOCOM doesn’t operate EC-130s, they operate AC-130s. I just mixed those two up composing the post. After rewatching the video it’s really not clear at all whether he’s saying A or E though, so hopefully that gets clarified at a later date.

As for the AC-130, optical targeting is used but you’re wildily underestimating the importance of its datalinks. Hand-held Link 16 on the ground is used during the entire strike and provides information that can make or break a successful mission. It’s been described as the biggest upgrade they’ve ever gotten, as it allows them to be much more precise when working around friendly forces.

In the case of the hospital bombing, one of the main factors was dead Link 16. The fire orders were “phoned in” through a JTAC, which not only sets up a telephone type situation but also introduces a level of general uncertainty into the information being passed along. Info about the B-1 strike is harder to find but again datalinks were out and were cited as a major issue.

As I said, while it doesn’t literally prevent them from firing depending on the situation on the ground they could absolutely be deterred or delayed by a jamming attack. CAS is reliant on information from the forces in the fight, and if communication is cut a strike close to friendly positions can become a very risky proposition.

I think an AC-130 being jammed would be a much more significant event than an EC-130 being jammed.

Link 16 again does not prevent an AC-130 from doing its mission and again is not the system that designates targets. Visible lasers, strobes, smoke, GPS, and a host of other material that it is not reliant on Link 16 can not only give the craft its position but can give position relative objects on the ground. Yeah Link 16 has helped improve the overall performance but the track record prior to that system ever existing using far simpler designation and search and track systems proves it is hardly the make or break equipment for the aircraft.

The data links excuse on both of those is complete bullshit. Again the US openly admitted that the rules of engagement were deliberately broken when they targeted a known and marked hospital. Someone knowingly and willingly designated the hospital as a target. The array of tracking and targeting equipment on the AC-130's flying today means it is next to impossible for them to make that mistake. They would need something a lot more severe than just their Link 16 going down like their entire suite of EO equipment going down as well. The hospital was deliberately marked to avoid being bombed by aircraft in the first place. Everything from US troops visiting the facility to communications and updates on locations with accurate GPS coordinates and available lines of communication makes it almost impossible to accidentally target hospitals like that.

The AC-130 has enough targeting, tracking, and advanced navigation radar and other systems it can serve flying system and targeting platform. That is where the Link 16 would be vital namely transmitting those systems information to other systems other then just the operators screens.

It is a lot more significant to have a craft that is dedicated Electronic Warfare platform that includes both defensive and offensive Electronic Warfare systems as well as SIG Int gear. Just like the AC-130 has crew dedicated to its targets and weapons the EC-130 has dedicated crew just for its EW missions which includes SEAD, Offensive EW, SIG INT, SAR Capabilities for looking for signals in some extent. Having that craft be jammed to the point it can't its job is a lot more notable given it is equipped to fight back against such attacks. I still assert it was flown to where the Russians would jam it on purpose with the SIG int equipment turned on to gather intel on the jamming system. Its radar signature won't look all that drastically different from an AC-130 on radar both craft have odd protrusions which would possibly give some possibly odd radar returns on tracking equipment.

edited 25th Apr '18 11:09:45 PM by TuefelHundenIV

Regarding EW attacks on Hercs. It should effect an AC-130 or EC-130's ability to fly equally. Either none at all, if the aircrew is proficient in traditional flying and navigation techniques, or critically, if they have come to rely on GPS and similar systems.

Assuming that the instrument panel in the AC-130 and EC-130s don't rely on such tech wizardry to begin with. Glass Cockpits are common enough that even the Civil Air Patrol uses them in their Cessnas.

In any case, it would be pretty funny if the Russians didn't know we had EW airframes in the area listening in on their ECM until we mentioned it in passing in a press release.

The Colonel Fired Over That Dino Puppet Reenlistment Video Finally Speaks

(He's retired now, so I'm pretty sure the gloves are off if he wants to talk trash about his previous chain of command)

You're seriously underestimating the role of communications, GPS and datalinks in close air support. It's not an exaggeration to say that they're often critical to the process. CAS overlapping with friendly forces is a real risk in a unclear situation.

Again, I'm not saying that an AC-130 would be literally blocked by a jamming attack, but in an already uncertain situation on the ground if the crew was unable to communicate with ground forces and didn't have accurate positioning they could very well choose not to fire. This would be more significant than an EC-130 being jammed because it actually effects events on the ground to the point of potentially putting American lives at risk.

I agree though that EW platforms were flown in the region on purpose. It's a known jamming environment and an EC-130 is fairly unobtrusive, with the news hitting big I'm sure the Russians will think twice before turning their antennas towards odd planes next time.

There's no jamming we know of that can actually interfere with the avionics and flight systems of a military aircraft. The main thing it does is mess with comms and datalinks.

You'd think they could easily fuck with the signals from the GPS system, but then military aircraft have a pretty wide variety of navigational tools. I'm not sure if the C-130s have them, but I know inertial navigation systems have been on KC-135s and B-52s since at least Vietnam. Basically you have a bank of gyroscopes that measure the aircraft's changes in movement, these and the aircraft's other flight instruments feed data into a computer which plots the aircraft's movement relative to the Earth. Had a teacher who used to fly the BUFF who claimed that they had a bank of eight gyroscopes in that plane just to make sure none of them were off. If a gyroscope gave a different reading than its comrades, then the computer would discard its input.

Yeah, INS is standard on most military aircraft these days. It's not quite as good as GPS since it tends to get off track the longer you fly with it but it's close enough. B-2s and RC-135s have stellar navigation systems similar to the famous "R2-D2" on the SR-71, which are pretty cool.

There are a lot of ways to get around GPS denial, and we practice for it pretty frequently. Just two years ago there was a big exercise that resulted in degraded GPS across most of the western US.

The voting computers are a common feature as well on military aircraft. The F-35 uses a similar system for its fly-by-wire, with multiple systems voting on the final action.

Leave it to the US Air Force to weaponize democracy.

archon: Were not going to agree on this one for various reasons so lets move along to something more interesting.

Like what on Earth are they going to find to do a similar job in the future? I have seen rumblings similar to the A-10 that is cheaper craft for permissive environments and something more specialized for intrusion into contested air space. And now I can't unsee a stealth AC-130.

Quite a few aircraft have additional navigational equipment, can be flown by instrument, and/or the old fashioned way with maps and route planning. The AC-130 has some neat navigational systems aside from GPS to boot.

edited 26th Apr '18 3:34:20 PM by TuefelHundenIV

It seems safe to assume a large portion of the CAS mission will be passed off to unmanned aircraft in the near future. The AC-130 has proved itself wildly effective but in all fairness a large part of what it does could be accomplished in other ways. Especially with some of the wild "auto mortar" concepts flying around on demand fire support is finding new ways to show up.

There's also the various Speed Agile offerings, particularly the ones from Lockheed and Boeing. That's supposed to be a direct replacement for the C-130, so it could presumably replace the AC-130 as well. Stealth only goes so far for an aircraft doing a pylon turn in visual range though.

I am guessing you are talking about the automated mortar mounts the Special Forces were testing and using or the new ROV automated gun/mortar the army was testing recently.

Is that the ne STOL craft concept they have been poking at across the past five or so years?

Yeah. They're limited to stationary systems in service as far as we know now, but with stuff like ADIM, Elbit's Spear and the other truck-mounted units coming of age the mobile systems look promising. I believe some SOF units have already looked into Spear, though I'm not sure how far they pursued it. Add on top of that the various precision guided mortar rounds that showed up a few years ago like ACERM and you've got some potent capabilities in a very small package. The Marines actually have a program running right now called Organic Precision Fires that's trying to add heavy fire support to infantry units. It wouldn't be surprising to see a lot of the AC-130's mission offloaded to things like that.

Speed Agile is the proposed blended wing transport, I'm not sure if it's the entire C-130 replacement program though. [1]◊ There's the odd rumor every now and then of a finished one flying around, but nothing concrete.

edited 26th Apr '18 4:03:40 PM by archonspeaks

Yeah Organic Precision Fires is what is displacing the old 120mm Rifled Mortar the Corps was using. Apparently their variant of the 120mm was problematic to say the least and a huge pain in the ass to make road mobile. They are going in big for some sort of PGM oriented system come hell or high water.

edited 26th Apr '18 4:27:33 PM by TuefelHundenIV

Man, Key Resolve got weird due to the Inter Korea Summit Meeting. Mostly for the better, at least for me.

dRoy: Yeah no fending off communist Nork Hordes with a bayoneted M-4 for you. :p

Speaking of the Marines Organic Fires program.

From Military.com, The Marines basically want the next gen up gunned Switch Blade Munitions Drone. The requirements are a bit of a tall order but not too far out of proportion for possible tech. They want a drone no more than 254mm/10 Inches in diameter, 2.4 meters/8 feet, with a 2 hour loiter time, and a strike range of 60km/ 37 miles. They want it to have a warhead capable of engaging personnel, vehicles, and facilities. They want to have a reasonably capable EO capability and a secure communication/control linkage.

In addition the Marines are looking at the guided ACERM 81mm Mortar shells that could punch out the 81mm mortar range to roughly 20km.

Ok lets put these possible systems into perspective. For the Mortar we are talking a system that would outrange 105mm Howitzers and with a greater degree of accuracy than their typical unguided rounds. This opens up a lot of possibilities especially given the sharp increase in automated mortar systems in the 81mm to 120mm range. You are talking weapon systems that could possibly be deployed at the platoon level with greater reach and accuracy than systems deployed at the company level or higher. That is a huge change in possible fire power offerings.

The wish list drone is even more interesting. The max limits in terms of dimensions of this system would make it larger and longer than any currently fielded PPACK heavy ATGM and even quite a few of the vehicle mounted varieties as well. It would actually out range the majority of guided gun based systems firing guided shells. The warhead requirements could be met with either the usual US HEDP warhead which is basically a shaped charge augmented with a fragmentation sleeve built into the warhead or possibly something more sophisticated. The Marines are basically asking for a dumbed down variant of the LOCASS munition. The weapon would be roughly platoon level.

That system if it ever comes to be could partly upset the apple cart in terms of long range fire power. If infantry can carry it so can vehicles and the Marines already proved systems like the smaller Switch Blade are not only air deployable but they can be steered to the target from an aircraft.

edited 28th Apr '18 6:27:29 AM by TuefelHundenIV

As long as we’re on the topic of the Marines, they just signed a huge contract for more M27s and confirmed that the M27 will be “partially replacing” the M4. [1]

Looks like HK is winning again. A Marine spokesman even said that the M27 was “the best overall fighting rifle”.

edited 28th Apr '18 11:17:04 AM by archonspeaks

Heh. Marines always love their rifles.

Really, really, love their rifles. There are a surprising amount of Vietnam veteran Marines going around still grumbling on how the M14 was superior the M16 and didn't need replacing (but that's just their doctrine, maaaaaan).

edited 28th Apr '18 11:44:24 AM by TheWildWestPyro

Pfft. Doctrine my ass. If they adhered to that they would have lept on the M-16 after the M-14 shit the bed.

Most of them justify with "muh stopping power", "just like the M1", "precision firepower < full auto" and "M16 = jam-o-matic with weak-ass round".

I mean, the M14 is not a bad rifle at all, and is very reliable. But the pre-74 AK line still uses a fairly powerful and heavy intermediate round, and it's still controllable on full auto.

It should be noted that the M14 was designed to replace the M2 Carbine, M1 Garand and M1918A2 BAR all at once. Not a good idea.

Plus there's also the weight problem. The M1 is acceptable, as clips are lighter and you can carry more with you. But considering all the gear a typical GI carried then, plus the hefty M14 and all the 20-round mags, it's very easy to get tired in the jungle.

edited 28th Apr '18 5:24:04 PM by TheWildWestPyro

Oh I know the failings of the M-14. They tried to make it do too much and it failed badly. They also kept with wood furniture which turned out to be a bad idea. I remember seeing an article about how big a pain in the butt they can be to tune for conversion into a DMR.