Author Topic: one of the largest weapons deals of recent years (Read 984 times)

Cobra412 · « **Reply #30 on:** September 23, 2004, 04:06:56 AM »

Bozon I beg to differ on your comment in regards to surgical strikes using GPS guided weapons. I've been there when we've used them specifically because it was a surgical strike. Many of the weapons used in the initial strike on Iraq this last time were GPS guided.

Laser Guided weapons are notorious for "laser no guide" failures. Very often 1 out of 2 weapons will fall long or short of it's target due to this type of failure. They will typically miss by 500 to 1000 feet. They are also subject to misses due to improperly boresighted targeting systems. They are also subject to failure due to laser failures of the targeting systems themselves.

GPS weapons are just as precise if not more than Laser guided munitions. The weapons have only two things to worry about during a release. One being a good initial bomb run and decent weather. Laser guided have much more to worry about and the problems are rather normal.

I'm also well aware of Israels technology. Especially considering they didn't want to by many of the systems that would normally come on the F-15. They chose to build their own and have them installed. I've seen the alternate systems they installed and they are far better than the ones the US buys for their F-15s. One example is the EMD (Engine Monitoring Display). The US EMD is a LCD type screen that is notorious for having white blotches over time. This is not the case for the Israelis. Theirs is a standard Monochrome CRT. It's average life span is almost 2 years longer than the typical US EMD. Same goes with their mapping system. The were the first to design and use a completely digital mapping system. We have only started using this type of system about 5 years ago. We were still using old microfish style Map reader systems. They were plagued with jams, broken reels, and distorted and unreadable maps.

I'm also very aware of our "smart weapons" since I'm part of flight test. I was here when JDAMS and WCMDs were being tested for use in the active duty sector. Same with the AIM 9X and a few other weapons.

bozon · « **Reply #31 on:** September 23, 2004, 10:29:42 AM »

all true Cobra.
It's just the IAF definition of surgical strike is very different from the USAF's...

in the IAF a surgical strike is to hit 1 person/vehicle on the move from over 6000ft AGL.

The GPS weapon is mostly for smoke / bad weather condition or for strikes under SA threat.

Bozon

Cobra412 · « **Reply #32 on:** September 23, 2004, 02:09:26 PM »

Bozon true. They do have a tendency to go after moving targets.

Maybe an ABL system is the next thing they'll design.

mossada · « **Reply #33 on:** September 24, 2004, 12:33:50 AM »

Speaking from experiance (14 yrs IAF) the IAF is more than capable of using any current U.S. "smart" munition, and we have a few of our own. Also to the ones who say to cut us off, I thought the U.S. was looking for allies not to kill the ones they have off. the IMI also produces many systems far superior to systems used by the U.S as stated in previous posts.

Gunslinger · « **Reply #34 on:** September 24, 2004, 12:39:50 AM »

Blah blah blah....taxpayer money....blah blah blah....why do they need them.

As far as I've read on this IAF PAID FOR the bombs. So no waste of the taxpayers dollars but an increase. The DOD buys them from a manufacturer....manufacurer pays taxes on profits...

As far as smart bombs go.....wouldnt it be better to have more accurate weapons to take out hamas leaders......rather than inacurate bombs that have a better chances of killing non combatants?

Cobra412 · « **Reply #35 on:** September 24, 2004, 05:54:58 AM »

Mossada much of the US Military issues is not having access to advanced and more reliable systems. It deals with who's gonna pay for it. The US Military has a tendency to be penny pinchers. I've seen many advanced systems come out and we don't buy them because of their cost.

We had an advanced fuel quantity guaging test set come out for trial use. It's size and ease of use was outstanding. Opposed to spending more time pulling panels to hook up it cut our trouble shooting time down by almost 3/4. It was a one panel deal and you could isolate every tank unit. For whatever reason the US decided not to buy it.

Same goes for the CRT EMDs. We ran tests on them and they were extremely reliable. Military didn't want to pay the upfront cost to change out every last one though. Even though the cost would have been made up for in less than 2 years solely on the fact it would spend less time in the back shops.

Steve · « **Reply #36 on:** September 24, 2004, 10:25:19 AM »

Quote

Also to the ones who say to cut us off, I thought the U.S. .....

Unfortunately, we are cursed with many idiots here in the U.S.. Fortunately, few of them attain jobs of higher importance than urinal scrubber so we are not in danger of any of them being in a position to set U.S. policy.

Torque · « **Reply #37 on:** September 24, 2004, 10:50:16 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Steve
Unfortunately, we are cursed with many idiots here in the U.S.. Fortunately, few of them attain jobs of higher importance than urinal scrubber so we are not in danger of any of them being in a position to set U.S. policy.

Unless you're a C sudent with the communication skills of a gregarious anthropoid ape.

So there is still hope fer urinal cake polishers.

Steve · « **Reply #38 on:** September 24, 2004, 10:53:20 AM »

Lol, Torque!