Libyan War

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 28 Mar 2011 23:45

the B52 is claimed to be in service until 2040. the last ones were perhaps constructed in mid 60s. so airframe service of 85-90 yrs!!

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 28 Mar 2011 23:50

http://3d-top-event.net/?technik=58&tag ... sh_version

360' panorama of E3 interior - no overhead bins, biz class seating, SUNW workstations...

Pranav · Post by **Pranav** » 29 Mar 2011 06:09

manjgu wrote:let us first build capability to counter the pakis and then the chinkis..and then maybe worry abt the french and then the americans.

The Chinese are quickly closing the tech gap with the west. So, to deal with the Chinese, one will also need the capability to deal with western technology.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 29 Mar 2011 07:38

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/ ... annel=awst

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 29 Mar 2011 08:05

Hearing obama today, I guess the libyan war would not be that much we can many active defensive system put to work. It would be mostly of SEAD and some precision choking strikes.

no money! and no oil returns as in Iraq

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 29 Mar 2011 09:12

if SEAD is good, even a guy pushing bombs out of a DC3 dakota can be effective thats one takeaway. platforms like A-10, AC-130 which are vulnerable to any decent SAM are romping around with impunity in daylight these days.

NATO SEAD is very understaffed and depends on US resources - apparently the F-16CJs(usaf) at spangdahlem , italian and british AF tornadoes specially modified for the role are the only nato assets , plus Growlers on 'loan' from USN to land bases. French have no specialized SEAD platform we know of.

given the large scale chinese threat of SAMs, just hanging a bunch of SPJ onto strike a/c isnt going to cut the cake for us. we are as nook nood as the french in this matter.

its time for a serious effort to make a Growler version of the su30mki given it has 2 seater, large number of pylons, adequate reserve power being 2 engined and long loiter time. a unit of 25 such planes could be vital day-1 assets to roll back enemy SAM bubbles and safeguard strike a/c. for weapons, we can initially work with KH-31P, KH59 and AASM and later on develop the Astra-1 into a HARM type missile with in-flight datalink from shooter and Sudarshan with folding wing range extention kit. air launched nirbhay-2 equipped with ARM seeker in a decade as our own desi jassm.

it will surely take 5 yrs minimum, so the right time to start was ... yesterday.

china has offically purchased around 200 of S-300 TELARs with a mix of big and small missiles. plus they license make their own to mount 'cloned' HQ-x missiles. thats a lot of missiles and radars, once can expect overlapping and redundant bubbles of coverage over all chinese base areas and marching routes. and these will be protected by good quality SR-SAMs and AA.

jai · Post by **jai** » 29 Mar 2011 10:07

Singha wrote:if SEAD is good, even a guy pushing bombs out of a DC3 dakota can be effective thats one takeaway. platforms like A-10, AC-130 which are vulnerable to any decent SAM are romping around with impunity in daylight these days.

It will surely take 5 yrs minimum, so the right time to start was ... yesterday.

china has offically purchased around 200 of S-300 TELARs with a mix of big and small missiles. plus they license make their own to mount 'cloned' HQ-x missiles. thats a lot of missiles and radars, once can expect overlapping and redundant bubbles of coverage over all chinese base areas and marching routes. and these will be protected by good quality SR-SAMs and AA.

Agree.

Given paki and Cheenee missiles and AF's, there is no alternative to not having a very strong SAM/ABM network. We need to learn from the Cheenees here and replicate/better their model. A partnership with Russians to co-produce the S 400/500 (a - la Brahmos) is certainly the need of the hour, and can further complement the other systems in development/induction. Any country will think for a very long time before trying any adventures if we have a long range sam coverage like the S 400/500. This may also keep their AWACS at bay.

Also, high time DRDO focussed on creating strong EW and Cyber warfare capabilities for India - this IMO can be a great capability multiplier without going nuclear.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 29 Mar 2011 11:21

imho we should follow the american model
- SAMs for point defence only (lots of spyder, igla-S sa-26, akash, maitri)
- AWACS, tankers, high class fighters for area defence (NOT SAMs) except special cases for Barak-NG, however lots of cheap SAMs like Akash can be used as a backup line to catch leakers, not uber expensive big sam systems.
- long range radars for early warning
- big missiles for ABM only

in the sea since our carrier air power is very modest for next decade, no option but to stuff Barak-8 into every ship possible and hope for best.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 29 Mar 2011 14:04

Singha wrote:http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/ ... annel=awst

It kinda amusing to read that Igla-S manpads would be high on threat matrix for NATO/US and that they need "full spectrum of electronic warfare capabilities" to deal with advanced threat , ofcourse Venezuela is the prime suspect for selling Igla-S

Arya Sumantra · Post by **Arya Sumantra** » 29 Mar 2011 14:08

Singha wrote:imho we should follow the american model

Their model uses airborne platforms using fighters loaded with aams often described as "flying sam batteries" as compared to truck based ground mobile batteries in russkie model. Now what is cheaper to own- a truck or a fighter? What is cheaper to operate- a truck or a fighter? What platform do we build indigenously- a truck or a fighter? An aam has a pylon life of certain number of sorties after which it becomes dead-weight as Shivji has argued but a SAM does not have a truck life (not that I have heard of, pardon me if it does). The advantage of fighter is the speed as compared to ground mobile platforms and ability to fly over any terrain. That's why we need a mix of both.

They did what they did because they have an advanced aeronautical set up in place and their Cos have lobbying power to make govt go for a solution which kept their facilities busy. But they(uncle) have a history of settling for the most expensive solution for a smaller advantage. The only airborne solution that comes close to a ground mobile SAMs in building and operating costs is an aam loaded patrolling airship not an expensive airplane.

JMT

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 29 Mar 2011 14:46

Pranav wrote:
manjgu wrote:let us first build capability to counter the pakis and then the chinkis..and then maybe worry abt the french and then the americans.
The Chinese are quickly closing the tech gap with the west. So, to deal with the Chinese, one will also need the capability to deal with western technology.

My thoughts here in the "Anticipating and countering future threats" thread
http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 4#p1057124

jai · Post by **jai** » 29 Mar 2011 15:03

Arya Sumantra wrote:
Singha wrote:imho we should follow the american model
Their model uses airborne platforms using fighters loaded with aams often described as "flying sam batteries" as compared to truck based ground mobile batteries in russkie model.

They did what they did because they have an advanced aeronautical set up in place and their Cos have lobbying power to make govt go for a solution which kept their facilities busy. But they(uncle) have a history of settling for the most expensive solution for a smaller advantage.

JMT

They are also not surrounded on three sides by countries hostile to them who almost have a parity if not combined superiority to their air force. The whole American strategy seems to be to take the war to their enemies. I am not sure they expect any air force to reach and attack the American main land, hence situationally are very different from India, where the cheenees and pakis both have enough missiles and plans to throw at us - therefore strong AD seems to be a dire need.

Klaus · Post by **Klaus** » 29 Mar 2011 15:47

VikramS wrote:By THawk-CM do you guys mean this micro UAV?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honeywell_RQ-16_T-Hawk

AFAIK, it will be some time before micro-UAV's can be configured to remote-control fire and guide CM's. So, US is not there yet, as in 6th gen technology.

UBanerjee · Post by **UBanerjee** » 29 Mar 2011 16:16

Arya Sumantra wrote: They did what they did because they have an advanced aeronautical set up in place and their Cos have lobbying power to make govt go for a solution which kept their facilities
busy.

Perhaps also because truck-based SAM is entirely useless for Americans. To guard against Mexican Airforce?

In any case American model is one of power projection which is suited to their geography & status. You are correct that an Indian model will have tobe adapted to subcontinental situation.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 29 Mar 2011 16:32

If we have to use Rajenda/Akash Mk2 or 3, then sumjo, we have failed all BVR missions using IAF assets.Novotor or equivalent (beyond astra ) is a very impart-ant mijle!.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 29 Mar 2011 17:55

> Now what is cheaper to own- a truck or a fighter? What is cheaper to operate- a truck or a fighter?

history has shown the soviet style SAM based defence can be taken apart by strong EW and SEAD assets, plus a shower of cruise missiles. once the radars are gone, the SAMs themselves are useless. the chinese and pakis are loading up on cruise missiles. and soon stealthy cruise missiles for sure.

a truck mounted SAM system is surely cheaper than a fighter but far less survivable than a good fighter, it also cannot redeploy in a few hrs across 100s of km to where the real fight is - it is a defensive system and cannot swing between offense and defence as needed or entirely disappear from scene if need be. and the big SAM systems do not come cheap.

I would favour 5 rafale @ $100mil each than a S-400 system @ 500 mil. ofcourse I am strong supporter of good SRSAM and Akash type cheap MRSAM but not a fan of the 'big' missiles of the S300/400/500 complex.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 29 Mar 2011 18:09

DEW (directed energy) might give us the real protection.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 29 Mar 2011 18:53

how to power it in the field? duracell batteries will not work

application on ships is more realistic in near term as a laser-CIWS.

Aditya_V · Post by **Aditya_V** » 29 Mar 2011 19:40

The best defence is offence, your cruise missles along with Spy satellites detecting the launch vehicles should launch a counter offensive against main against launchers/ airbases/ miltary comand structures within minutes, Sam should be able to handle the initial 100 odd CM's if you are going to have any chance.

Thats why even the US has the patriot, Hummer mounted Stingers etc...

Also we should have lots of redundant illuminators in thousands, radar processors etc should be fewer.

I guess thats the only we can survive.

Imagine Gadaffi had ballistic missiles to Bomb the Airforce bases in Italy and anti ship cruise missiles in Hundreds, aircraft with sonabuoys carrying anti-sub torperdos, this attack on him would not be so easy.

One more thing to factor - terrain, comparing the Kosovo campaign and Gaddafi - the open desert is the ideal situation for the US to attack.

Arya Sumantra · Post by **Arya Sumantra** » 29 Mar 2011 22:17

Singha wrote:
SaiK wrote:DEW (directed energy) might give us the real protection.
how to power it in the field? duracell batteries will not work

a turbine based powerplant mounted on a truck perhaps. adapted from Kaveri ???

jai · Post by **jai** » 30 Mar 2011 01:44

Singha wrote:> Now what is cheaper to own- a truck or a fighter? What is cheaper to operate- a truck or a fighter?

history has shown the soviet style SAM based defence can be taken apart by strong EW and SEAD assets, plus a shower of cruise missiles. once the radars are gone, the SAMs themselves are useless. the chinese and pakis are loading up on cruise missiles. and soon stealthy cruise missiles for sure.

a truck mounted SAM system is surely cheaper than a fighter but far less survivable than a good fighter, it also cannot redeploy in a few hrs across 100s of km to where the real fight is - it is a defensive system and cannot swing between offense and defence as needed or entirely disappear from scene if need be. and the big SAM systems do not come cheap.

I would favour 5 rafale @ $100mil each than a S-400 system @ 500 mil. ofcourse I am strong supporter of good SRSAM and Akash type cheap MRSAM but not a fan of the 'big' missiles of the S300/400/500 complex.

Reply posted in Anticipating & Countering future military threats / challenges

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 30 Mar 2011 06:07

Why the Air Force's hot new F-22 fighter jet is exactly the wrong aircraft for shooting at Qaddafi's forces on the ground in Libya

http://ricks.foreignpolicy.com/posts/20 ... anes_and_s

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 30 Mar 2011 10:18

Libyan SA-24 Can't Be Used as MANPADS

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 30 Mar 2011 13:19

as usual a ragtag convoy of pickups and cars tried to attack dug in defenders in Sirte, got their butts whipped and ran back in disarray to the next town in east El Jawad.

and Sirte is Qadhafi's hometown so will be well fortified and local people will support the defence.

will the alliance start bombing locations inside the town and killing civilians ? are pro-regime civilians != anti-regime civilians?

its quite clear that head to head the rebels are totally useless against the libyan army and merceneries. either they need to bring in seasoned units of army deserters or sit content under UN protection in the new emirate of Cyrenaica.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 30 Mar 2011 13:33

1st armour div of the rebels Fakhr-e-Benghazi
http://img34.imageshack.us/img34/8799/800xrg.jpg

xinhua pic of inflight BLU bomb near qadhafi compound, moments before impact
http://img688.imageshack.us/img688/8178/800xne.jpg

african mercs. the guy standing on right looks like brother of another guy in "The Rock"
http://img690.imageshack.us/img690/8863/800xq.jpg

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 30 Mar 2011 13:40

What are the chances that we could see a Civil War in Libya , if NATO supported rebel/civilian and Gadhafi supported civilians/rebel end up fighting prolong urban fight ?

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 30 Mar 2011 13:45

Singha wrote:1st armour div of the rebels Fakhr-e-Benghazi
http://img34.imageshack.us/img34/8799/800xrg.jpg

What the west is telling SDREs is that if you have air dominance, even these guys can win a war...

If "air dominance" is going to be demonstrated on you tomorrow, you'd better figure out today how you gonna break it. Or else.

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 30 Mar 2011 14:14

Austin wrote:What are the chances that we could see a Civil War in Libya , if NATO supported rebel/civilian and Gadhafi supported civilians/rebel end up fighting prolong urban fight ?

civil war is very much underway
and increasingly the beards are getting involved - remember, the good col was anti-beardie
the emirate of cyrenacea may not know what has hit it...

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 30 Mar 2011 15:06

there are pics captioned as egyptian islamists in the rebel ranks.

http://img843.imageshack.us/img843/20/800xem.jpg
http://img576.imageshack.us/img576/6118/800xv.jpg

I dont see any "officers" in the rebel tanks commanding things and giving our orders. they are operating as a armed 'mob' / desert raiders - moving fast, light logistics, captured weapons, religious zeal , whatever... somewhat like the early arab armies that marched west to palestine which was ruled by greece at the time.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 30 Mar 2011 15:14

a comment has been made that a small troop of IFV (with 20mm/30mm cannons and HMGs) could take apart the 1st Armour rebel div within a few minutes.

but I guess thats where the air dominance thing comes in - atleast in bare desert. this mob would have been chewed up by serb military operating in the woods and ravines.

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 30 Mar 2011 16:51

the rebels would be chewed up by almost any disciplined military unit with a modicum of heavy weapons
any progress they are making must be almost certainly due to their new 'advisors' (formerly known as the men in black chaddis)

Arya Sumantra · Post by **Arya Sumantra** » 30 Mar 2011 19:07

Perhaps criticism is lavishly heaped on rebels to also cover up that the embedded bearded anglo SF personnel SAS aren't really exceptional.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 30 Mar 2011 19:11

^touche.

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 30 Mar 2011 19:34

no they are not exceptional, just flesh and bone like everyone else
even they have to work with a command structure, like the NA
in Free Cyrenacia, there is no one in charge

Arya Sumantra · Post by **Arya Sumantra** » 30 Mar 2011 19:41

Lalmohanji I was referring to media's excessive criticism of rebels not yours or by forummers here. The rebels are indisciplined bunch but they can be excused as they are basically civilians who have learnt to press trigger and have youthful thrill for adventure. But the failure of seasoned embedded bunch should not be overlooked because of media's distracting lament on rebel indiscipline.

srai · Post by **srai** » 31 Mar 2011 02:55

These may have been posted before ... here are some videos of RAF Tornado GR4s in action:

Video of in-route to strike (shows the payload):

3 x Brimstone ASM
2 x Paveway-IV LGB
2 x 2,250 litre (495 Imperial Gallons) drop tanks
2 x AIM-132 ASRAAM
1 x Litening-III targeting pod
1 x BOZ-100 Chaff/Flare Pod
1 x Cerebrus ECM pod

Videos of strike on MBTs, APCs, and MBRLs:

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 31 Mar 2011 16:23

pickup truck with 4 bm21 type rockets
http://img215.imageshack.us/img215/3246/800xwo.jpg
http://img834.imageshack.us/img834/2121/800xny.jpg

foreign looking 'guest fighters'
http://img3.imageshack.us/img3/965/800xog.jpg

2000D with 2 big lgb comes up for AAR
http://img15.imageshack.us/img15/1610/800xg.jpg
http://img585.imageshack.us/img585/1610/800xg.jpg

rafale with 6 aasm
http://img268.imageshack.us/img268/1568/800xvr.jpg
http://img848.imageshack.us/img848/1566/800xz.jpg

rebel armour on the march
http://img41.imageshack.us/img41/8131/800xr.jpg

rockets and fanta
http://img217.imageshack.us/img217/8908/800xo.jpg

vina · Post by **vina** » 31 Mar 2011 16:32

serb military

Never EVER underestimate the Serbs, when it comes to war fighting qualities.Tough as nails, never say die. They gave the Truks a horrid horrid time all those years and defiance and never surrender is in their blood. Knew a few serbs while in Unkil land. They gave the Germans a terrible time in the Balkans as well.

neerajb · Post by **neerajb** » 31 Mar 2011 16:40

From this angle (carnards not that visible), looks so much like the Tejas trainer.

Cheers....

akimalik · Post by **akimalik** » 31 Mar 2011 17:15

Could anyone let us know what those 6 * flat-panels on the spine of the 2000 are?

Singha wrote:2000D with 2 big lgb comes up for AAR
http://img15.imageshack.us/img15/1610/800xg.jpg