Noob's Random Military Questions

User avatar
The W:AB Noob
Lieutenant General
Posts: 4564
Joined: Fri 12 Jul 2013 22:29
Location: United States, Central Time Zone
Contact:

Noob's Random Military Questions

Postby The W:AB Noob » Fri 5 May 2017 00:59

Are pods of 19 70-mm Hydra rockets (LAU-61/M261) ever equipped on planes? Is it even possible?

Why were the early Leopard 2 and Type 90's designed with non-sloped armor? Doesn't sloped designs make armor vastly more effective?

On every A-10 I've seen, the forward part of the landing gear "pod" is painted black only on the starboard side. Is there a reason for this?

Are Harpoons top-attack? In Digital Combat Simulator, they are, but in many of the videos I have seen, the strike the sides.

Rockets and missiles of the US military have recently drastically increased their range (Stinger, Harpoon, Sparrow, AMRAAM, etc.). How has this improved


Thanks!
W:RD Sandbox Mod 5.4.2, the Final and Ultimate Patch Click -> Image

User avatar
FrangibleCover
Lieutenant
Posts: 1465
Joined: Mon 14 Nov 2016 21:34
Contact:

Re: Noob's Random Military Questions

Postby FrangibleCover » Fri 5 May 2017 01:19

The W:AB Noob wrote:Are pods of 19 70-mm Hydra rockets (LAU-61/M261) ever equipped on planes? Is it even possible?

Image
Eminently so. I'm not sure if you could get it off the deck with that load but you can get 19 shot pods on aircraft. All of the aircraft with Hydras in Wargame carry them in 19-round pods.

7-round pods are also available, I can't think that I've seen anything else on an aircraft but by no means will I say that that's it. Unless you count those weird combined practice bomb/rocket things but we won't.

Why were the early Leopard 2 and Type 90's designed with non-sloped armor? Doesn't sloped designs make armor vastly more effective?

'Box' armour buys you more efficient use of internal volume and apparently long thin fast APFSDS penetrators don't care too much about sloping.

On every A-10 I've seen, the forward part of the landing gear "pod" is painted black only on the starboard side. Is there a reason for this?

I'm sure there is but I don't know it. 4/5 ain't bad.

Are Harpoons top-attack? In Digital Combat Simulator, they are, but in many of the videos I have seen, the strike the sides.

Not quite, they do a terminal pop-up to make themselves more difficult to target for CIWS but I wouldn't go so far as to call it top attack. It's not to deliberately penetrate the deck.

Rockets and missiles of the US military have recently drastically increased their range (Stinger, Harpoon, Sparrow, AMRAAM, etc.). How has this improved

I'm assuming from the mention of Sparrow and the mention of Harpoon without sniggering that we're talking 80s-90s kind of time?

Off the top of my head, the Stinger range increase was thanks to a better sensor and the AMRAAM range increase due to a better motor. The Sparrow got a better motor and a better seeker, it was probably the motor that made the difference. I don't know on Harpoon and I probably should.
What if Wargame stuck to timeframe?
Image

User avatar
Fade2Gray
General
Posts: 8659
Joined: Wed 1 May 2013 23:30
Location: IED proof in Iraq
Contact:

Re: Noob's Random Military Questions

Postby Fade2Gray » Fri 5 May 2017 01:35

FrangibleCover wrote:
Why were the early Leopard 2 and Type 90's designed with non-sloped armor? Doesn't sloped designs make armor vastly more effective?

'Box' armour buys you more efficient use of internal volume and apparently long thin fast APFSDS penetrators don't care too much about sloping.


I remember asking my uncle the same thing a long time ago (he worked in the defense industry for his entire career after leaving government work), apparently it also made for better performance against HEAT rounds as well.
Image
Image
Think you have what it takes to enlist into the military? You sure about that?

User avatar
The W:AB Noob
Lieutenant General
Posts: 4564
Joined: Fri 12 Jul 2013 22:29
Location: United States, Central Time Zone
Contact:

Re: Noob's Random Military Questions

Postby The W:AB Noob » Fri 5 May 2017 02:09

FrangibleCover wrote:
Spoiler : :
The W:AB Noob wrote:Are pods of 19 70-mm Hydra rockets (LAU-61/M261) ever equipped on planes? Is it even possible?
Image Eminently so. I'm not sure if you could get it off the deck with that load but you can get 19 shot pods on aircraft. All of the aircraft with Hydras in Wargame carry them in 19-round pods.

I've seen that picture, and this:
This link says that it was a lot of drag but I would still imagine planes like the A-10, A-6, and AV-8B to still carry those. After all, there are some A-6 and A-7 loadouts with three LAU-131's per pylon.

FrangibleCover wrote:
Spoiler : :
[
Why were the early Leopard 2 and Type 90's designed with non-sloped armor? Doesn't sloped designs make armor vastly more effective?
'Box' armour buys you more efficient use of internal volume and apparently long thin fast APFSDS penetrators don't care too much about sloping.

Okay, I guess that kinda makes sense. Still, sloped armor additions on the front wouldn't be taking that much external space, and the Leo 2A5/6/7 decided to do it eventually for some reason...

FrangibleCover wrote:
On every A-10 I've seen, the forward part of the landing gear "pod" is painted black only on the starboard side. Is there a reason for this?

I'm sure there is but I don't know it. 4/5 ain't bad.

No, it ain't bad at all :)

FrangibleCover wrote:
Are Harpoons top-attack? In Digital Combat Simulator, they are, but in many of the videos I have seen, the strike the sides.

Not quite, they do a terminal pop-up to make themselves more difficult to target for CIWS but I wouldn't go so far as to call it top attack. It's not to deliberately penetrate the deck.

But wouldn't that terminal popup give the enemy CIWS much more time to react? Especially if the enemy radar-guided weapons had trouble targeting the sea-skimming missile.

FrangibleCover wrote:
Rockets and missiles of the US military have recently drastically increased their range (Stinger, Harpoon, Sparrow, AMRAAM, etc.). How has this improved

I'm assuming from the mention of Sparrow and the mention of Harpoon without sniggering that we're talking 80s-90s kind of time?

Off the top of my head, the Stinger range increase was thanks to a better sensor and the AMRAAM range increase due to a better motor. The Sparrow got a better motor and a better seeker, it was probably the motor that made the difference. I don't know on Harpoon and I probably should.

I was looking it up more and only the AMRAAM seemed to improve it's range more than once. I'm gonna withdraw that question.
W:RD Sandbox Mod 5.4.2, the Final and Ultimate Patch Click -> Image

User avatar
FrangibleCover
Lieutenant
Posts: 1465
Joined: Mon 14 Nov 2016 21:34
Contact:

Re: Noob's Random Military Questions

Postby FrangibleCover » Fri 5 May 2017 02:39

The W:AB Noob wrote:
FrangibleCover wrote:
Spoiler : :
The W:AB Noob wrote:Are pods of 19 70-mm Hydra rockets (LAU-61/M261) ever equipped on planes? Is it even possible?
Image Eminently so. I'm not sure if you could get it off the deck with that load but you can get 19 shot pods on aircraft. All of the aircraft with Hydras in Wargame carry them in 19-round pods.

I've seen that picture, and this:
This link says that it was a lot of drag but I would still imagine planes like the A-10, A-6, and AV-8B to still carry those. After all, there are some A-6 and A-7 loadouts with three LAU-131's per pylon.

That particular loadout is a hell of a lot of drag for a Skyhawk but part of your question was whether 19-shot pods could fit on an aircraft. 8 of them on a rather small aircraft says 'yes'.

http://fz.be/bae-hawk
Shameless Belgium plug, there are a pair of 19 shot launchers on Hawks that will fire Hydras if the warranty doesn't concern you or will fire FZ90s, which are Belgian Hydras.
Image
Alright, found it, that's an in-service Belgian F-16A with at least two, probably four FZ LAU-51 19 shot 70mm rocket pods. Given the age of the photo they're probably full of FFARs but the concept is sound.

FrangibleCover wrote:
Spoiler : :
[
Why were the early Leopard 2 and Type 90's designed with non-sloped armor? Doesn't sloped designs make armor vastly more effective?
'Box' armour buys you more efficient use of internal volume and apparently long thin fast APFSDS penetrators don't care too much about sloping.

Okay, I guess that kinda makes sense. Still, sloped armor additions on the front wouldn't be taking that much external space, and the Leo 2A5/6/7 decided to do it eventually for some reason...

As I understand it the sloped modules on the later Leopards are just wedges of armour over empty space, providing stand-off distance and trying to induce long-rod penetrators to tumble before they hit the main armour (which will just shatter them). That's also why the underside slope isn't a shot trap, it's not thick enough to deflect anything much downwards.

FrangibleCover wrote:
Are Harpoons top-attack? In Digital Combat Simulator, they are, but in many of the videos I have seen, the strike the sides.

Not quite, they do a terminal pop-up to make themselves more difficult to target for CIWS but I wouldn't go so far as to call it top attack. It's not to deliberately penetrate the deck.

But wouldn't that terminal popup give the enemy CIWS much more time to react? Especially if the enemy radar-guided weapons had trouble targeting the sea-skimming missile.

If you're boring straight in then the CIWS doesn't need to react beyond taking a bearing and firing. If you induce a pop-up or a shimmy then the CIWS actually has to track you, which I presume has been tested and found to make up for the slightly increased reaction time. More modern missiles than the Harpoon, like I think the Kongsberg NSM, do a corkscrew manoeuvre to throw off the CIWS in two directions at one. The terminal pop-up happens pretty close to the ship, enemy radar guided weapons will be able to track the missile easily by then. So will eyes.
What if Wargame stuck to timeframe?
Image

User avatar
KattiValk
General
Posts: 6319
Joined: Tue 19 Nov 2013 03:39
Location: Houston, Texas (CST)
Contact:

Re: Noob's Random Military Questions

Postby KattiValk » Fri 5 May 2017 03:26

For IR missile range increases, you can usually credit it to advancement in seeker tech. Being able to lock on from farther or after and from different aspects makes the range ramp up considerably.

User avatar
The W:AB Noob
Lieutenant General
Posts: 4564
Joined: Fri 12 Jul 2013 22:29
Location: United States, Central Time Zone
Contact:

Re: Noob's Random Military Questions

Postby The W:AB Noob » Fri 5 May 2017 03:57

FrangibleCover wrote:That particular loadout is a hell of a lot of drag for a Skyhawk but part of your question was whether 19-shot pods could fit on an aircraft. 8 of them on a rather small aircraft says 'yes'.

http://fz.be/bae-hawk
Shameless Belgium plug, there are a pair of 19 shot launchers on Hawks that will fire Hydras if the warranty doesn't concern you or will fire FZ90s, which are Belgian Hydras.
Image
Alright, found it, that's an in-service Belgian F-16A with at least two, probably four FZ LAU-51 19 shot 70mm rocket pods. Given the age of the photo they're probably full of FFARs but the concept is sound.

Ah, and those pods are coned, just like Soviet/Russian and British ones. So maybe it's just USAF doctrine to not use LAU-61's. Thanks for that research!

KattiValk wrote:For IR missile range increases, you can usually credit it to advancement in seeker tech. Being able to lock on from farther or after and from different aspects makes the range ramp up considerably.

Got it, makes sense!
W:RD Sandbox Mod 5.4.2, the Final and Ultimate Patch Click -> Image

User avatar
StalkerDellaNote
Lieutenant
Posts: 1472
Joined: Tue 12 Nov 2013 12:23
Location: Southern California, USA
Contact:

Re: Noob's Random Military Questions

Postby StalkerDellaNote » Fri 5 May 2017 13:40

The W:AB Noob wrote:Are pods of 19 70-mm Hydra rockets (LAU-61/M261) ever equipped on planes? Is it even possible?


Well comrade, THE United States Marine Corps does infact mount 19 tube Hydra pods on the glorious, most beautiful fixed wing aircraft ever, AV-8B Harrier.. and has done so for decades.. They first used the LAU-3, then moved to the LAU-61, and now use the LAU-5003 to fire those kick ass new guided Hydra's.. the APKWS..

On every A-10 I've seen, the forward part of the landing gear "pod" is painted black only on the starboard side. Is there a reason for this?


That's where the A-10 houses all it's receiver's.. ILS, EIAD, IFF, etc.. same shit any other fighter would typically have in the nose.. why it's often painted with the rubbery black, not sure.. that's like asking why the F/A-18 and Harrier often have a slightly darker grey nose.. I seriously don't know.. just because I guess?
Last edited by StalkerDellaNote on Fri 5 May 2017 13:59, edited 2 times in total.
Image
"Re: Winter maps?" wrote:Maybe if they ever set Wargame in Scandinavia.

User avatar
FrangibleCover
Lieutenant
Posts: 1465
Joined: Mon 14 Nov 2016 21:34
Contact:

Re: Noob's Random Military Questions

Postby FrangibleCover » Fri 5 May 2017 13:55

StalkerDellaNote wrote:
On every A-10 I've seen, the forward part of the landing gear "pod" is painted black only on the starboard side. Is there a reason for this?

That's where the A-10 houses all it's receiver's.. ILS, EIAD, IFF, etc.. same shit any other fighter would typically have in the nose.. why it's often painted with the rubbery black, not sure.. that's like asking why the F/A-18 and Harrier often have a slightly darker grey nose.. I seriously don't know.. just because I guess

They use EM-transparent components and paint and suchlike. There are special composite formulations you use for nosecones that have better radar transparency than bog standard carbon fibre, for example. Presumably the paint is a different colour so that you can visually check whether the painting has been done correctly, although it could be that it's difficult to get the pigmentation right with the different sorts of paint. Early models of the F-16 had black nosecones as well, until the pilots complained that it made them too visible in a dogfight.
What if Wargame stuck to timeframe?
Image

User avatar
StalkerDellaNote
Lieutenant
Posts: 1472
Joined: Tue 12 Nov 2013 12:23
Location: Southern California, USA
Contact:

Re: Noob's Random Military Questions

Postby StalkerDellaNote » Sat 6 May 2017 13:15

FrangibleCover wrote:They use EM-transparent components and paint and suchlike. There are special composite formulations you use for nosecones that have better radar transparency than bog standard carbon fibre, for example. Presumably the paint is a different colour so that you can visually check whether the painting has been done correctly, although it could be that it's difficult to get the pigmentation right with the different sorts of paint. Early models of the F-16 had black nosecones as well, until the pilots complained that it made them too visible in a dogfight.

Hurr durr, I feel like a f**king idiot now.. I coulda guessed that :lol:
I feel silly that it never once occurred to me, cause yeah, I know the whole nose is a different composite material.. I'm looking into it now, because most F/A-18's I see nowadays are all one solid color, unless painted otherwise intentionally (see just about any VMFA, I suggest VMFA-232 or VMFA-225) so I'm on a quest for a solid answer about the radome colors -_-
Image
"Re: Winter maps?" wrote:Maybe if they ever set Wargame in Scandinavia.

Return to “Off-Topic”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 11 guests