Posted on 02/10/2010 8:46:40 PM PST by ErnstStavroBlofeld
Once a long time ago I was upgraded on a flight to Orlando and found myself next to a gray-haired German who had been visiting his family in Minnesota. Over drinks I learned that he had emigrated to the US after the 1939-45 war, and that during the war he had shot down a de Havilland Mosquito and a Messerschmitt Me262.
He'd achieved this unusual, quite possibly unique distinction as the commander of a gun crew using the 88mm L71, the highest-performing version of the classic 88. The Luftwaffe had designated free-fire zones in which anything would be fired on, regardless of identity. The Me262 pilot "thought he was immortal", my neighbor observed, and that the rules did not apply to him.
It's occurred to me since then, from time to time, that you don't need a missile to deal with a UAV like a Predator, or even an MQ-9 Reaper. Triple-A (anti-aircraft artillery) with a maximum lethal altitude of 15000 m can drop an air target at 33,000 feet (10000 m) at an 11 km slant range, and there are few targets easier than a not-very-stealthy UAV.
That's not the only way to shoot down a UAV, but it's probably the least expensive approach, it's unjammable and it underscores a simple fact: the operation of a Predator or Reaper is possible only when there is no effort by the enemy to contest airspace - where, if there are defenses, they have been rendered completely ineffective.
Today's US air power planning bets heavily on such an environment. The 30-year air investment plan released last week calls for the USAF to buy 372 new Reapers in the next eight years, flying alongside some 200 US Army Warriors.
(Excerpt) Read more at aviationweek.com ...
The only problem you have shooting anything airborn is that you are shooting uphill with no reference as to where your bullets are going. Are you shooting high or low, taking enough lead or what? If you shoot tracers to correct, the air target knows exactly where you are, not a good situation.
....Bob
Two problems with this argument-
AAA capable of shooting that high is large and prominent, like that 88mm L71. And they require a lot of ammo, hundreds of rounds to get a hit. That was a big gun, and a big target, and a big logistics footprint.
An AAA battery will require a couple of radars to find the target and point the guns, this can’t be done by eye, even in WWII the Germans were using complex integrated radar systems for this. Radar also shouts “shoot here”.
For YOU to peek and fire, or for the anti-radar aircraft to peek and fire AT you?
Cheers!
That is why you move after turning off your radar.
Historically I can’t think of any instances of AAA doing so well. The Germans invested huge amounts in AAA with only moderate success at huge formations on bombing runs. The NVA, for all they put into AAA and SAMs didn’t shoot down that many US aircraft. The Stingers we provided to the muj inflicted casualties on Soviet aircraft, but I’m not aware of it being significat enough to deny the battlespace to Soviet aircraft.
I agree, I never saw the need for AAA fire especially in the advent of SAM. The Germans realizing this (too late) developed the Wasserfall.Wasserfall was essentially an anti-aircraft development of the V2 rocket, sharing the same general layout and shaping. Since the missile had to fly only to the altitudes of the attacking bombers, and needed a far smaller warhead to destroy these, it could be much smaller than the V2, about 1/4 the size.
Either weapon can also be defended against as well with time and refitting. That probably won't happen until after a bunch of these craft are knocked out at a critical moment.
More exotic weapons like the ultra-high powered laser or plasma gun could destroy the UAV directly.
It is probably a bad idea to assume that our forces will always have uncontested airspace, clean satellite links, and a technologically unsophisticated opponent.
There is no such thing as an ultimate weapon.
That is why you switch “on” get a quick lock then switch “off” and move to another position
I saw the C-130 specter do its thing against ground shooters in Vietnam, and I would not want to be anywhere in the AO. That minigun was a solid stream of bullets. No sir, a ground AA shooter does not stand a chance in modern warfare.
....Bob
One wouldn’t be using these sorts of UAV’s against an enemy equipped with effective laser weapons !
Even the US and Israel still lack operational laser weaponry. The Taliban ?
Not with a heavy AAA battery you don’t. Shoot&Scoot don’t work with a system designed to shoot barrages.
You need a tracked AAA weapon system for that, and even that wouldn’t really work, theres a reason there was no heavy flak system on tracked chassis made since WWII.
No Taliban-type operation is going to obtain, maintain and supply a heavy flak battery, much less a tracked one.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.