might as well throw out that planning assumption.
-
Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?
Go here:
Edit Account Details and Profile
APKWS Hits the Fleet
- Thread starter SynixMan
- Start date
Again, an area where we are currently AFU and will continue to be so.
M-197 is not the weapon for the Navy's intended use. Oh and by the way it has more drawbacks than the other options. ie M-230, .50's. Less punch, less accuracy, fewer rounds carried, not internally reloadable. (Plus other issues that I dont feel like discussing here,) The only thing it has going for it....our supply system happens to have a stockpile that the current users dont want.
Why not go with a weapon thats proven on the -60 platform. The M-230 would have been a great weapon for what we need. Or how about the Air Force side mounted .50s. Fixed forward, and crew served in the same package, all without taking up the cabin space of our current and/or proposed systems. Oh and the .50 uses the ammo we already have on ships.
The GAU-17 is supposed to be coming to a Sierra near you. However just like everything else, it's not like we'll ever get the NCEA to actually be good at using it. We don't even get the ammo to make our crews proficient with the 2 weapon systems we have now, either way its going to be a shitstorm when we add more.
I've heard all the gucci excuses for Hellfire replacements as well. APKWS, LOGIR, flechette rockets, etc. Very few of those options actually have the ability to do what we need. Holding laser spot on a single boat moving fast in rough seas amid hundreds of other boats (some of which may or may not be hostile as well.) until impact and hoping to kill more than 1 boat before its game over? We need to stop kidding ourselves.
We're gonna keep doing more with less till we are stuck doing everything with nothing, or some nameless CSG takes losses in a nameless body of water and there's no choice but to actually spend money somewhere its needed.
M-197 is not the weapon for the Navy's intended use. Oh and by the way it has more drawbacks than the other options. ie M-230, .50's. Less punch, less accuracy, fewer rounds carried, not internally reloadable. (Plus other issues that I dont feel like discussing here,) The only thing it has going for it....our supply system happens to have a stockpile that the current users dont want.
Why not go with a weapon thats proven on the -60 platform. The M-230 would have been a great weapon for what we need. Or how about the Air Force side mounted .50s. Fixed forward, and crew served in the same package, all without taking up the cabin space of our current and/or proposed systems. Oh and the .50 uses the ammo we already have on ships.
The GAU-17 is supposed to be coming to a Sierra near you. However just like everything else, it's not like we'll ever get the NCEA to actually be good at using it. We don't even get the ammo to make our crews proficient with the 2 weapon systems we have now, either way its going to be a shitstorm when we add more.
I've heard all the gucci excuses for Hellfire replacements as well. APKWS, LOGIR, flechette rockets, etc. Very few of those options actually have the ability to do what we need. Holding laser spot on a single boat moving fast in rough seas amid hundreds of other boats (some of which may or may not be hostile as well.) until impact and hoping to kill more than 1 boat before its game over? We need to stop kidding ourselves.
We're gonna keep doing more with less till we are stuck doing everything with nothing, or some nameless CSG takes losses in a nameless body of water and there's no choice but to actually spend money somewhere its needed.
Damn, can't believe how few rounds some of you guys shoot.
I don't get how APKWS is being talked about as a replacement for Hellfire. It is a completely different weapon with a completely different application. It also requires basically the same delivery patterns as existing FFAR's, it just has a smaller CEP.
I don't get how APKWS is being talked about as a replacement for Hellfire. It is a completely different weapon with a completely different application. It also requires basically the same delivery patterns as existing FFAR's, it just has a smaller CEP.
It's not a replacement for Hellfire. The intent is the right weapon for the job at hand. Hellfire was purchased under many false pretenses. While there are some applications where it still makes sense for us to carry it, the original purchase was supposed to be a one-size-fits-all just like everything else Big Navy pushes on rotary wing.
This is the whole issue: Aside from Hydras, nothing in the rocket realm that has been proposed so far makes sense to me. The effective ranges for guided rockets are such that I'll probably have to support the weapon for it's entire flight ... unacceptable when I'm already that far into bad guy effective ranges.
Same goes for M197 vs. M230. M230 was first cast aside because of 30 mm storage issues that no longer existed. The Navy is never going to pay for actual proficiency on any of its weapon systems. So buy me the most lethal and accurate ... M230 wins hands down at double the range and 8 times the accuracy, not to mention the huge difference in actual damage accomplished.
That's why I like the minigun. It allows max lead downrange combined with the psychological impact that seeing a "laser beam of tracers" would have on the adversary.
Making the weapon crew served will allow the gunners to engage the adversary while the pilots worry about manuevering the aircraft and staying out of the water.
Finally, the gunners can walk the rounds onto a moving (in all three axes) easier than a single barrel weapon or granade launcher.
Missiles are great against larger stell vessels, but against multiple fiberglass vessels, I want maximum rounds down range.
(everything I know about miniguns, I learned from watching Jesse the Body in Predator. If it's good enough for him, then it's good enough for me!)
Certainly not a PGM that requires me to maintain laser on a small, fast moving target. How about something with the range and punch to sink as many in as little time as possible. Ie enough rounds, good damage, long enough range to kill more than 1 boat per attack run. How about combining it with CSW?
M-230 works there. As does the air force .50. And both still allow either a GAU-17, or GAU-21 in both doors.
No, it wont.You guys need to get away from fixed gun ideas. Your not a P51, and a single barrel chain gun pumping 625 rounds a minute does not provide a big enough beating zone for you to deliver accurate fires. Ive shot fixed gun on a range when we had time to kill, even firing from the center line its a pain in the ass and I have a HDU with symbology giving me an aim point. I use the 230 in my daily life. For one its a very heavy round with a very small propellant charge so it has a hell of an arc on it at range and takes a good long time (12 seconds at 3000m) for you to even see where the rounds have landed much less correct. Thats with a turret that compensates for aircraft movement and a host of other ballistic issues. Even shooting HDU with your helmet out the window is only good to about 1000 and thats if your good at it. That system was designed more for being parked in a firing position and seeing some bastard on the tree line sneak out and point an RPG at you in close.
Yes they use it on the DAP bird. They also train to get in extremely close before they even start shooting. Some of our guys went to Jaded Thunder and watched, and then laughed at the 160th lauding their superb accuracy. No shit you can hit things, your shooting them in the face at that range. So you start life in the WEZ of any weapon they could use minus hand guns and just hope he hits you before you hit them. At those ranges you may as well be doing the crew serve mini out the door. They make a 3 barrel .50 cal mini if you want some added punch. And its a lot easier to walk a turret mounted gun onto a target than manipulate a 20000 lbs helicopter that inkling of an inch to get the right aim point.
I realize that its actual effective range is less than what everyone likes to believe. However its still more than the -197. Also comparing damage profiles, I'll take the round that actually puts a hole in the boat. Oh by the way, we're already starting in the WEZ so I would argue that's a moot point.
Since we're already sticking extra shit on the aircraft I would prefer either the -230 (or the .50's. At least those can be used as CSW with the flip of a lever). However why not go with both? Throw the -230, Bushmaster, etc on the wings, and then give the AW's the GAU in the door.
Ideal world, for this threat, I would take everything the DAP has. Give me the Fixed Forward Guns, Rockets, and mini's or .50 for the crewmen. (At the point we would really use this stuff, precision has gone out the window for the most part and there would already be a ton of targets most likely within the WEZ of any of my weapons for easily 180*) Then at least I can have a chance at killing some of them when the shit hits the fan. What we're limited to now is a whole lot of smoke and mirrors for people who don't want to actually spend the money needed to do what is necessary.
Since we're already sticking extra shit on the aircraft I would prefer either the -230 (or the .50's. At least those can be used as CSW with the flip of a lever). However why not go with both? Throw the -230, Bushmaster, etc on the wings, and then give the AW's the GAU in the door.
Ideal world, for this threat, I would take everything the DAP has. Give me the Fixed Forward Guns, Rockets, and mini's or .50 for the crewmen. (At the point we would really use this stuff, precision has gone out the window for the most part and there would already be a ton of targets most likely within the WEZ of any of my weapons for easily 180*) Then at least I can have a chance at killing some of them when the shit hits the fan. What we're limited to now is a whole lot of smoke and mirrors for people who don't want to actually spend the money needed to do what is necessary.
That's what I mean ... I don't want the added requirement of reduced maneuverability while inside that wez to support a guided rocket with laser energy. True fire-and-forget, be it unguided rockets, self aware rockets, big ass guns, sharks with freakin laser beams on their heads ... what makes sense is fire and maneuver.
Closest thing your gonna get to fire and forget is the Lima hellfire. Costs 200k a pop, requires 3 seconds of good laser energy to give the seeker a good north east and down to go inertial or find it on the rail, and doesn't always work. We call it a TADS to RF handover, and it's the least accurate "scarily so" way to shoot the missile.
Now something like brimstone might be just what you would want. Hellfire type missile with the ability to go caged IR or laser, all you have to do is give it the target, auto track, and shot.
This isn't to negate any of what you guys are saying, but I always liked this video (and another one that I can't find right now where they're playing with a -500). Why shoot one weapon system on each run? Let them have all three!
Embedded media from this media site is no longer available
I finally got Lawman's point about the fixed gun shooting, I'm slow bare with me. He's right, you're going to have to get what he considers really close. That said, Lawman I don't think you really understand how close you have to get to get a side firing weapon to be accurate. It's even closer. No computer to account for exterior ballistics and the only sighting system is to watch for bullet impacts and adjust. Accurate side fire requires A LOT of training bullets and getting very close. It's every bit as bad as fixed gun based on your objections. It's why the Marine Cobras always line up for an on axis run, they don't have your bad ass weapons computer.
What's the time of flight for a 2.75 at 1km? From what I understand it, auto track is the issue with the laser guided weapons over water. Is a manual track possible if you only have to support the weapon for a short time? Can you ripple fire the APKWS?
I think a true fire and forget is going to be a non-starter unless you guys can get a lot of money for radar guided hellfire and a radar to support it.
If the Navy's plan is to no shit have helos out shooting boats, it may ultimately come down to the helo crews and aircraft are expendable, just make sure you kill enough of them before you die. Sucks, but it isn't much different than the outlook for Apache crews in Korea. So the question is how do you kill as may boats as possible while reducing the risk as much as you can so that you can kill more boats, knowing that if you lose a helo that's better than losing a ship?
What's the time of flight for a 2.75 at 1km? From what I understand it, auto track is the issue with the laser guided weapons over water. Is a manual track possible if you only have to support the weapon for a short time? Can you ripple fire the APKWS?
I think a true fire and forget is going to be a non-starter unless you guys can get a lot of money for radar guided hellfire and a radar to support it.
If the Navy's plan is to no shit have helos out shooting boats, it may ultimately come down to the helo crews and aircraft are expendable, just make sure you kill enough of them before you die. Sucks, but it isn't much different than the outlook for Apache crews in Korea. So the question is how do you kill as may boats as possible while reducing the risk as much as you can so that you can kill more boats, knowing that if you lose a helo that's better than losing a ship?
If the ship you're doing ATFP for is the High Value Unit then you're automatically the Lower Value Unit, in which case its ok if you don't make it and then ship does. In an actual shooting war, I'm pretty sure we'd be working under Operational Necessity.