SEAD

foxtrout8 SG

IF IM NOT WRONG, A FEW DAYS AGO SOMEONE WITH THE NICK OF FAZ1 POSTED AN ARTICLE ON WAFF. GO LOOK AT IT FOR MORE DETAILS.

BTW, IF U DUNNO WHAT IS WAFF, U CAN STOP BEING QL AND REALLY PACK UP AND SLEEP.

foxtrout8 SG

I think it is enough for today.

A picture for you...

Good night my friend.

fett SG

no prob. just don't pop a blood vessel, both of you. you guys have been very informative.

foxtrout8 SG

Thank you.

Goodnight to you also.

chunyong SG

who cares who comes first, the rifles are identical, except the trigger area.

storywolf SG

"Just because a fighter was originally built to be a high-altitude interceptor means it cant be a SEAD fighter too? " Is that a stupid argument or what ! If like that also want to argue, I can also say 747 is a passenger plane, but that does not mean it cannot be a SEAD role ! Well is stupid enough to spend all that money and risk it to be shot down, a 747 also can be use for sead, just arm it with laser defense system, EW ... etc. yes it also can be SEAD plane, but at what cost and how effective. We are talking about facts not right down to stupid arguement like yours !

Note both P-3 or viking are use as EW warfare planes - yes ! But there is a totally different between EW warfare planes and SEAD !

A P-3 or viking can be a EW planes but never be SEAD planes. Your argument already show you don't even know the different between EW and SEAD ! SEAD role need planes that is fast and put Gs to break missile locks also they are operating in enemy terrority so expect to fight in and out !

Yes Artillery and soldiers can destory air defense ! but that show you how little knowledge you have in the battle of order ! The air defense is well behind the enemy frontline, so well protected, you think you know where they are ? You have to find them ! You think sending commando team down walk walk all over the place to look for them without being caught !

"And of course let's not forget a enemy rifleman firing his rifle into the air is also air defence" you may as well say ! you just need to talk cock, and enemy fighter pilot all die laughing in air !

Once again, EW is EW, it is not SEAD ! not sure if you are in SBSK airforce ! this simple basic stuff also don't know !

storywolf SG

Don't you sound just like SBSK ! alway when lose the reasoning, claiming to test people knowledge ! Why don't you just use your other Nick SBSK instead !

storywolf SG

Bloody stupid, argument !

You think AA asset is sitting there in the open for what it it protecting something, and you think AA is without ground force protection ! The moment you move up to attack, enemy amour and artilleries will engage your armour !

As for Commando, you have to insert far away and walk to destory AA, how many day is lost ! How big a team or a few team is enough to do enough damage ! So if engage how many will be lost ! You think all AA together ! how many AA can they destory at a time ! Using SEAD aircraft is faster and put the lesses number of men at risk.

Haha you really a damn lance corporal only ! No wonder brain full of your 3 mth BMT concept only. You think experience soldier so stupid to stand there to shoot to attract the plane more !!! BMT only teach you that only !

Also you think you cowboy, stand there with M16 and shoot out with a heli with machine guns !!! dumb !

By the way , you cook or driver is it ? Anyway since you live the same schedule as our friend SBSK, we will just have to wait till 6 p.m. onward before we get anything back from you ! haha !

pufferfish_79 SG

X2....

Laplace SG

Speaking of SEAD, I do believe that the common doctrine is to create "sanitized" corridors along deep-interdiction routes instead of wiping clean the entire area off anti-aircraft assets.

I wonder if these corridors are fixed throughout the entire duration of the air campaign or does the air force open and close each corridor in order to not allow enemy air defences from adapting, I mean come on, they can read a map as well as the air force planners can. Confused

chunyong SG

Mr. Green

foxtrout8 SG

I think in most cases, anti aircraft assets are sort out, 'sanitized' (as what u say) and if possible destroryed. You see, it is much more cheaper wiping off the enemy's air defence to the minimum as you can than u frequently have to require heavy EW support in every sorties. You see, the allies fail to neutralise the serbian's SAM system during the first few days of the Kosovo war and subsequently eventhough all air sorties are accompanied by EW or SEAD aircraft to their fully capability that they can arrange, SAM is a major problem in the war (despite the low number of allied aircraft downed).

Of course what happened in kosovo was due to many reasons which limits the effectiveness of the SEAD forces, however what is clear to me is that, it is through their fully ability that they try to neutralise the threat using force but they just fail to neutralise all. All in all, i cant realli think of any instances in which the force ceteris paribus, chose not to completely neutralise but just open corridors despite them having to know the threat and their capability to hit it.

Johnston SG

:/
Air defence ranges all the way from the rifleman firing his rifle at a helicopter, to very large SAM systems that have ranges over a hundred clicks.

Are you presuming to tell me that Artillery Bns cannot fire missions to destroy the enemy's SHORAD and V-SHORAD defenses?
That's a load of bull, because such systems have ranges of up to ten klicks.
And as such, they often accompany the forward echelons.

I think?
No i don't think.
I know.
I know for a fact that contrary to previous published arguments that the F-117A's penetrated Iraq all on their own during Gulf War 1, they were preceded by

1) SpecOps teams targeting Iraqi AA EW-Systems and radar batteries
2) USAF MH-53J Pave Lowes leading
3) AH-64 Apache attack helos
4) F-117A

Johnston SG

Yes, it's so dumb.
So dumb that the VC and NVA's one tactic in the early days of the war was to point up and shoot.

And did they, or did they not bring down US helicopters?
Yes.

That settles the point.
I shall take this opportunity to remind you that even today, .50 cal machine guns are accepted AA armament for tanks.

Johnston SG

http://www.hkpro.com/psg1.htm
http://www.hkpro.com/msg90.htm
http://www.hkpro.com/msg3.htm

PSG1 = 25.6 inch cold hammer forged polygonal rifled barrel, a strengthened receiver to minimize torque, the famous (and heavy) PSG1 fully adjustable buttstock, and a clip on trigger group with wooden handle adjustable for hand size.

MSG90 = PSG1 trigger group, with light 3 lb. trigger pull, stock adjustable for height and pull, though smaller and lighter than the PSG1 buttstock.
Also, unlike the PSG, the scope mount is removable and the rifle can be purchased with or without the standard scope offered by HK. It features a newer scope mount that is found on only a few of the HK rifles, as compared to the more conventional claw mounts. You will find this mount on the MSG90, the HK21E and 23E and the now out of production G41 series. The muzzle of the barrel features a weight to aid in the harmonic stabilization of barrel whip for enhanced accuracy.

MSG3 = The MSG3 is a rare variant of the G3 rifle that was made expressly for the Deutsche Bundeswehr (German Army) The most noticeable difference is the long barrel. (23.35 inches)

yes all of them are identical.

foxtrout8 SG

I agree with you that SpecOps have important roles in the suppression of AD. But i believe what StoryWolf mean is that especially in Singapore case, SOF troops for SEAD after the start of war may not the best solution as the SAF require frequent airstrikes, the mobility of SOF troops in enemy terrain to flush out AD pieces might not be able to match up the frequency of our airforce. Anyway, it is best to plant SOF troops behind enemy lines to flush out AD pieces before the start of war than after the start of war.

chunyong SG

psg-1 is wellknown for its grip which is unique and the buttstock also...and its one of the most accurate semi longrange rifle also...but best is still AI's....no horse run.

LazerLordz SG

We still need air-based SEAD sorties.SOF and grunts cannot carry this out by themselves.

foxtrout8 SG

True my friend. It is a combine effort. However SOF and grunt are extremely useful is flushing those that are unseen by SEAD aircraft and need not say, they provide good intelligence.

What happen in Kosovo was that, those SAM pieces (largely the mobile ones) that are difficult to track almost single handledly cause the SAM crisis there. So u see, for such systems which can pose great threat to our aircraft, we need grunts to be down there to flush them out, sometimes even before a major sortie can begin. As i had said before, it is best that they enter and locate the tangos before the war and make the destruction of those systems (together with other crucial pieces) the declaration for ultimo ratio regis.

« Previous Page Next Page »