• Thursday, August 22, 2019

How does the Air Force strike precisely? Before, I thought it was easy

Discussion in 'Air Warfare' started by ZY-CN-CA, Jul 17, 2019.

  1. ZY-CN-CA

    ZY-CN-CA FULL MEMBER

    Messages:
    159
    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2015
    Ratings:
    +0 / 276 / -0
    Country:
    China
    Location:
    Canada
    How does the Air Force strike precisely? .
    Before, I thought it was easy
    However, now look at the picture, if not zoom in, the naked eye can not see clearly. . Not to mention the distance of 100km.

    [​IMG]
     
  2. ZY-CN-CA

    ZY-CN-CA FULL MEMBER

    Messages:
    159
    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2015
    Ratings:
    +0 / 276 / -0
    Country:
    China
    Location:
    Canada
    see..very small:smart::triniti:
     
  3. NeptuneShadow

    NeptuneShadow FULL MEMBER

    New Recruit

    Messages:
    13
    Joined:
    May 24, 2018
    Ratings:
    +0 / 15 / -0
    Country:
    Pakistan
    Location:
    Pakistan
    they have targeting computers + sensors like heat and IR, which locate targets for them using image processing + AI and guided ammunition.
     
    • Thanks Thanks x 2
  4. Areesh

    Areesh ELITE MEMBER

    Messages:
    32,993
    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2010
    Ratings:
    +29 / 58,116 / -32
    Country:
    Pakistan
    Location:
    Pakistan
    Then Indian air force failure in February made you realize that it isn't as easy as it seems to be
     
    • Thanks Thanks x 5
  5. NeptuneShadow

    NeptuneShadow FULL MEMBER

    New Recruit

    Messages:
    13
    Joined:
    May 24, 2018
    Ratings:
    +0 / 15 / -0
    Country:
    Pakistan
    Location:
    Pakistan
    Radar lock or laser beam lock is important for guided ammunition and due to quick response by PAF, IAF planes had to fly back and break the lock on the target.
     
    • Thanks Thanks x 1
  6. gambit

    gambit PROFESSIONAL

    Messages:
    24,362
    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2009
    Ratings:
    +136 / 22,044 / -8
    Country:
    United States
    Location:
    United States
    Here is a WW II example...

    [​IMG]

    Basically, everything was performed by the bombardier -- in his head. This is why it literally required hundreds of bombers just to TRY to take out a target. The above image was of a Luftwaffe mission against RAF St. Eval in Jul 1942. Note the runways and taxi ways were still functional, meaning aircrafts can still use it.

    [​IMG]

    Now, we shifted the burdens of calculations to the computers in the aircraft and the munition.

    For the B-2 example above, photo reconnaissance aided in the precise coordinates of the runway ARRAY. The word 'array' is important. Runway and taxi way intersections were designed for maximum efficiency of any operation, military or civilian, and that is for its own discussion. In attacking the ARRAY itself, aided by photo recon, we gained the effects we wanted back in WW II with only six bombs. That is what it meant by '...achieve the effects of mass without having to mass...'

    1- The effects of mass = deny runway functionality.

    2- Having to mass = bring a lot of bombers.

    We produced item 1 without using item 2.

    The harsh reality is that today, only US can deploy this capability. We got every airport and air force base IN THE WORLD mapped. Make no mistake about that.
     
    • Thanks Thanks x 6
  7. Psychic

    Psychic SENIOR MEMBER

    Messages:
    2,457
    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2015
    Ratings:
    +27 / 3,826 / -0
    Country:
    Pakistan
    Location:
    Pakistan
    Mechanical computers have been used since WW1 by bombers for aiming---- But weren't accurate enough as modern guidance systems.
     
  8. Synchonicist

    Synchonicist BANNED

    Messages:
    279
    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2012
    Ratings:
    +0 / 155 / -1
    What happened when they attacked the Sharyat airbase in Syria in 2017 ?

    [​IMG]

    Are tomahawks not capable of cratering the runways ?

    Hours after the U.S. missile strike, Syrian government's warplanes took off from the Shayrat base to attack rebel positions again, including the town of Khan Shaykhun"

    Trump actually said they didn't attack the runways because they are easy to quickly fix :lol:
     
    • Thanks Thanks x 1
  9. gambit

    gambit PROFESSIONAL

    Messages:
    24,362
    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2009
    Ratings:
    +136 / 22,044 / -8
    Country:
    United States
    Location:
    United States
    Runway denial attacks -- like any kind -- depends on the goal.

    If the goal was to prevent air assets at a location from contributing to the war effort, then runway denial would be ideal. In one operation, runway denial do not need to be long term, just long enough to allow coordinate attacks elsewhere. So what if runway repair crew returned the runways back to full functionality? More critical targets elsewhere have been destroyed.

    You can laugh at US, if you want. But that would just shows you are not interested in the technical aspects of this unique military operation. A limited perspective on your part. :enjoy:
     
  10. Synchonicist

    Synchonicist BANNED

    Messages:
    279
    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2012
    Ratings:
    +0 / 155 / -1
    I'm not laughing at the US's capabilities but was was a funny Trumpism (I'm a fan of the guy btw)

    In this particular case, the US wanted to attack the airbase where the aircraft that carried out the alleged chemical attack on the city of Khan Shaykhun took off from. Why would they not crater the runway and allow for planes to take off from there within mere hours of the missile strike and attack the same place again ?

    What's your expert opinion on it ? Also, tomahawks, can they be configured for runway denial strikes ?
     
  11. gambit

    gambit PROFESSIONAL

    Messages:
    24,362
    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2009
    Ratings:
    +136 / 22,044 / -8
    Country:
    United States
    Location:
    United States
    The press had an explanation for it...

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/apr/07/visual-guide-us-airstrikes-on-syria-donald-trump
    This was not the first time politics interfered with military planning.

    Runway denial is specific enough. If we wanted to disable the runways, we could have done it easily.

    This FAA source have good explanations on runway design and composition.

    https://www.faa.gov/documentlibrary/media/advisory_circular/150_5320_6e.pdf

    Sections 3 and 4 are relevant.

    Tomahawks can be used for runway denial, however, it still falls back on what is the final goal. If the final goal is the airbase itself, then Tomahawks with specialized munitions would not be considered. To disable the runways' functionality, we would have to damage the runway strata and the best munition for that is the guided bomb. Gravity drives the bomb in a relatively vertical path. Delayed fusing would detonate the warhead at the sub-strata level, making runway repair, if there are any, more difficult and time consuming.
     
    • Thanks Thanks x 1