Thirty Minutes Over Toseong

Posted by

Come, let us reminisce.

It’s the mid-2000s, and war has broken out over the Korean Peninsula. I climb into my F-16C Block 52, get her powered up, and listen to the radio chatter as the inertial navigation system aligns. The time is just after noon, and the tower welcomes a few flights back. Good. The war only started this morning, but losses of planes and pilots both have been heavy.

The INS is aligned, and the Data Entry Display, the little green screen beneath and to the right of my HUD, informs me that my takeoff time is in five minutes. I radio the tower, and they clear me to taxi to runway 20R at our airbase, Seosan, a little ways southwest of Seoul. In between lining up another flight for landing on runway 20L, the tower gives my little two-ship clearance for takeoff.

We’re loaded light today, four AMRAAMs and two Sidewinders, so I take off at military power to save on fuel. We turn east-northeast and climb. We’re to our rendezvous point in about ten minutes. A few miles behind us, the ground-attack flight we’re escorting slots in. I check in with Chalice 4, the AWACS flight covering our sector of the front, and he advises me of bandits to my west, heading this way. I dither for a moment: should I push west and deal with the bad guys, or stick close to my flock?

On the assumption that close escort is and always has been dumb, I turn west. I match the bullseye position on my radar MFD page to the position AWACS gave me, and sure enough, I see two contacts headed my way. I hand one off to my wingman, bug the other, get target confirmation from AWACS, and send the first AMRAAM on its way. It hits, and my wingman’s does too. AWACS calls picture clear, and I turn my flight back toward our charges.

Of course, this is a full-scale war. There’s no way our sector will keep quiet for a full half-hour. Sure enough, AWACS reports contacts about 60 nautical miles distant, inbound from the north. We have identifications: one or two MiG-23s in the middle of a big group of Il-28s. Neither are particularly fearsome, but the MiGs should go first on principle—the Ilyushins are ancient jet bombers, dating from the late 1940s or 1950s, while the MiGs have some 1970s-vintage missiles that might pose a threat to us if they get close enough.

This is where things start to get a little hairy.

It isn’t that engaging the MiGs and Ilyushins doesn’t work—it works just great. The problem is that we still have ten minutes left on station. AWACS calls out a close threat—so close they give us a bearing and range, instead of a bullseye call—and my wingman goes low to deal with the MiG-19 that apparently managed to get in underneath us. Having pushed a little further north than I wanted while prosecuting the bombers, I turn south to extend, and take stock of my situation. I’ve fired all four of my AMRAAMs, and I have a pair of Sidewinders left on the rails. My wingman splashes the MiG-19 down low, and I call him for his status. “Winchester,” he says, “fuel state 2000.”

Well, that’s no good. He’s out of everything and has enough fuel to make it back to Seosan. I send him home, and call AWACS to let them know I’m effectively empty.

“Lobo 9-1, Chalice 4, your window of vulnerability is still open. Can you hold out?”

Well, crap. “Wilco,” I reply, on the assumption that an F-16 with no long-range missiles at angels 25 looks, on radar, to be very similar to an F-16 with long-range missiles at angels 25.

Then the RWR chirps in a way I’m too familiar with. The new threat is a MiG-29. I call AWACS again. “Nearest contact bullseye 050, 60 nautical miles.” I fiddle with the horizontal situation display MFD page, and verify that those are indeed the Fulcrums, sixty or seventy miles out. I ask if I can go home again, and they insist I try to hold out a little longer. There isn’t really much holding out to be done, though. I can’t take on a pair of Fulcrums on my own.

I can stick around a little longer, pretending to be armed, though. I have one eye on the clock, one eye on my RWR, and both ears listening to AWACS updates. It’s agonizing—the MiGs are closer to a missile shot every minute, and I don’t have the fuel to run away at afterburner for very long. Finally, the clock ticks past the edge of my station time. I call AWACS and tell them I’m out of Dodge, and I put the MiGs on my six and run for home.

So ends this tale of a rarity in gaming: a moment when I was not only happy to escape, but actually planning on running away.

The games I’ve enjoyed the most over the years have a common theme: they make war stories. Whether it’s the one time in PlanetSide where I used a Galaxy to scrape the enemy off of a hilltop position, or that time I was stuck on-station with MiGs bearing down on me, it’s the sort of immersion that resonates with me the best. That’s the best thing I can say in favor of Falcon 4 BMS.

Parvusimperator Reviews the SCAR-16S

Posted by

I picked up a SCAR 16S a few weeks ago. I got it because I wanted a factory carbine in 5.56mm that wasn’t an AR-15–I have a few AR-15s already, and I really enjoy putting together AR-15 project guns. And if I wanted something different, I was going to get something significantly different. Plus, the SCAR 16 was the coolest gun in the world when I was in high school. I wanted one so bad. Well, now I have one.1 What’s it like, and how does it stack up to a comparable AR-15?

The SCAR was designed by FN for SOCOM. It was to be the ultimate carbine for their requirements, replacing the Mk. 12 CQBR, the M4 and the Mk. 18 SPR. It was intended to be highly modular, and featured a quick-change barrel. The SCAR 16 shares 90% of its parts with its big sister, the SCAR 17, which is chambered in 7.62x51mm NATO. Currently, SOCOM is focused it’s resources on buying the SCAR 17, since it’s hard to find anything quite as good in 7.62 NATO, and they can get M4s for “free.”2 A variant of the SCAR, the FN Advanced Carbine, was entered in the individual carbine competition, but that competition was cancelled. The SCAR has proven reliable and popular with SOCOM, especially with the SEALs. However, it hasn’t been a big enough improvement over the M4 (which itself is improving) to warrant procurement by Big Army. Enough history, let’s get on to the civvie version!

Disclaimer: A SCAR is not an AR-15.

You might think this is totally obvious, but I think it bears repeating. People are used to AR-15s, and a lot of SCAR reviews out there call out the SCAR for not being 100% AR-15-like. Well of course it’s not. If you want an AR-15, go buy one of those. I love AR-15s. I think they’re great. I won’t stop you. But this is different in a lot of ways–some good, some bad.

The SCAR 16S is chambered in 5.56x45mm, and comes with a 16″ lightweight barrel. Works for me. It’s 1.5″ longer than the standard barrel length in the military version, but I have to deal with the NFA and they don’t. Also unlike the military version, it comes with the excellent FSC556 muzzle brake instead of a flash hider. Since it’s got a 16″ barrel, muzzle devices can be swapped by the owner if desired. Otherwise, it’s basically the same gun as the military version.

THE GOOD
The stock is pretty awesome. Since there’s no buffer tube,3 the stock can fold. It’s also telescoping, and has a nifty adjustable cheek riser. The SCAR can be fired while the stock is folded, which makes you feel cool. And also, kinda goofy. The stock has six positions of telescoping goodness, and the riser has two positions. I’ve heard stories that soldiers had issues with the stock breaking. I’m not sure how much of this is because soldiers can break anything, and how much is due to engineering problems that have been worked out but mine is pretty sturdy. I haven’t actually tried to smash it to bits or do anything stupid with it like break rocks, but I also haven’t babied it. I’m no soldier, so take that as you will.

I like the reciprocating charging handle. You can mount it on the left or the right side of the gun. Some people have scraped knuckles on their optic when using it, but this hasn’t happened to me. I have an Aimpoint Comp M4S mounted on my SCAR, and I tend to wear gloves at the range. If you don’t wear gloves and have a different optic, your results might be different. Some people have also complained that the charging handle has hit their hand while shooting. I’m not honestly sure how this can happen if you’re not trying to make it happen, but maybe that’s because I don’t hold my carbine like a complete moron. I’ve also not seen anyone post a picture anywhere of their hand position when the charging handle hit it. The reciprocating charging handle makes diagnosing whether your magazine is empty or if your weapon has jammed easy. Plus it makes locking the bolt back for administrative or remedial action simple. On the left side, you can pull the bolt back, and with your hand palm down, can trip the bolt catch to lock the bolt in position with your thumb. Simple, convenient, one-handed operation.

The bolt catch is only on the left side of the gun, but the safety and mag release are ambidextrous out of the box. As mentioned before, the charging handle can be configured on the left or the right side, per the user’s preference. The safety is nicer than the AR-15, since the 45 degree position is fire, not the 90 degree one. The shorter throw is nicer to work with. I know, it sounds silly, but it still works better. It’s a bit nicer for the military, since full auto is at the 90 degree position rather than the 180 degree one. Triggerwise, there’s a “combat trigger” in there that’s designed to resist abuse and desert sand and always trip a primer. So it’s not bad, but it’s not good. It’s a trifle gritty and somewhat heavy. There are aftermarket triggers from Geissele and Timney that make things better, of course.

Unlike a lot of the higher-end AR-15s, the SCAR comes with a quality set of folding backup iron sights. The rear sight is adjustable for range and windage, and has two apertures. The front sight is mounted conveniently on the gas block. Minor annoyance: it blocks the front of the picatinny rail, so you can’t slide an accessory over it. Most things you’d want to mount on the top rail don’t need to slide on like that, but there it is.

I should also mention the quick-change barrel. I think the military may like this one more than me. It takes me a long time to shoot out a barrel, and I don’t often think of swapping them. However, I do like that I don’t need a vise to remove or replace a barrel, unlike when working with the AR-15. It’s a minor thing, but the design is cool, and it saves me having to figure a way to improvise a vise in my apartment.

THE BAD
First thing I’m going to call FN out on here is being cheap. The gun came to me in a cardboard box, with some cardboard padding. Lame. With an MSRP well north of two grand, the least they could do is throw in a halfway decent plastic case. Ideally, it’d be a lockable travel-ready case, but I’d settle for almost anything nicer than this lame cardboard thing. It’s not even a cool looking box.

They’re cheap again with the stupid A2-type pistol grip. No one likes these. They’ve got a nub in a stupid place. This is an expensive gun intended for civilians. Would it kill you to put a better grip on there? There are lots available, and while preferences vary, almost all of them are better than the basic A2. It’s something the premium-ARs tend to get right. First thing I changed was the lame grip. Fortunately, AR-type grips work on it, so I grabbed one and made the switch.

The SCAR is in some ways stuck in the early 2000s. Just like the stock M4, it comes with seven inches of handguard space. This is enough for your hand. There’s room for accessories, but it gets a little cramped. You also don’t have much choice in where you’re going to put your hand. AR-15 ergonomics have moved on so people can grip out further if they want, and so that there’s more space for hands and accessories. For the record, this is why so many military guys went to vertical foregrips. Once they loaded their M4s with all their kit, there wasn’t enough room left for their hands. Being a civilian, I don’t have this much crap to hang off my gun. I might like to get my support hand out a bit more though. There are extensions, but they add weight forward. There ain’t no such thing as a free lunch, and the SCAR is probably heavier than most AR-15 carbines out of the box. That said, I might give a handguard extension a try.

THE ENGINEERING
Clearly, the SCAR doesn’t use the same sort of operation as the AR-15. The SCAR is tappet driven: gas drives a small piston which smacks the bolt carrier assembly and drives it backwards. The bolt carrier assembly is reassuringly beefy, and most of the weight is above the bolt. Since there’s no gas flow required, the bolt itself is pretty thick and sturdy. It doesn’t have any obvious narrow points where stress issues might arise. Field stripping is easy, and requires no tools. Those of you who have seen pictures of the SCAR might note that the different shades of tan don’t match. This is by deliberate request of SOCOM, as it’s supposed to break up the outline of the rifle. I have no idea if this actually works.

SHOOTING THE SCAR 16S
It’s a light recoiling carbine. Duh. The FSC556 muzzle brake does a great job of helping you keep the rounds on target. Unsurprisingly, the recoil impulse is different from that of the AR-15, but it’s not unpleasant, like any other carbine. It handles well, and while shooting with the stock folded isn’t very practical, it puts a big grin on your face. I’ve found that even though I’m not using a thumb over barrel grip, the Magpul AFG is pretty comfortable on the handguard. The trigger snob in me would like a better trigger, but this one is serviceable. I’ve shot many worse triggers (mostly courtesy of Fishbreath).

VALUE COMPARISON
I’m not going to compare the SCAR to a quality entry level AR-15 like the M&P15 sport or the Colt LE6920. Those are much cheaper and still shoot 5.56mm, but don’t have any rails or quality furniture. No, such things aren’t necessary, but they’re nice. And I always think cross-market comparisons are stupid. If you’re thinking about a SCAR, you might be wondering how it compares to the premium AR-15 options. Even though we take away most of the price differential, the AR-15 has been out longer and is very popular, so it’s got a lot more development. There are a number of modular handguard options, which are lighter, but tend to get hot faster. Pretty classic tradeoff. The SCAR’s handguard is sturdier, since there’s no joint. But, you’re pretty much stuck with it. The AR has more ergo options, but the SCAR has a better manual of arms for troubleshooting. Overall, the AR-15 is a more mature platform, so if you only had to get one, I’d tell you to go that route. Probably. But the SCAR is way cooler, and if you already have an AR-15 (or several), or just like the SCAR, you can’t go wrong with one.

1.) Okay, I have a civvie semiauto-only one. Shut up, it’s still awesome.
2.) By “free”, I mean paid for by the parent service, not the SOCOM branch. E.g. paid for by the US Navy, but out of the big budget, not that of the SEALs.
3.) Remember that part where it’s NOT an AR-15?

Resurrected Weapons: ADATS

Posted by

The US Army has never been really big on air defense. This is mostly because the USAF has been really good at establishing and maintaining air superiority. However, in the 80s, the US Army decided to stop taking this for granted. They made the excellent Stinger MANPADS and the exceptional Patriot long range missile system. There’s a gap between these two systems, and to fill it, they collaborated with Canada on ADATS. This system entered Canadian service in 1989, but the US Army version ended up going overbudget and was cancelled1 as a part of those early-90s defense cuts that I love to hate. Let’s take a look at the system and see if it was any good.

The ADATS missile is a short-range system. It’s 2.05 meters long, 152mm in diameter, and has a finspan of 50cm. It weighs 51 kg. It’s capable of a top speed of Mach 3 and has a range of about 10 km. These numbers are similar to those of Tor, though Tor is rather larger and has a bit more range. In terms of tasking, both missiles have a similar primary role and guidance mechanism. Tor is radio command guided, but ADATS is laser beam riding. Similar guidance principles, different methods. Interestingly, ADATS makes more use of electro-optical targeting systems. Like TOR, it has a 3D air search radar with a range of 25 km that can track 10 targets simultaneously. ADATS uses an infrared imager to select targets and engage them. Tor has an electro-optical system as well, but it’s more or less a backup; normally Tor uses an engagement radar.

So Tor has better range, and ADATS can operate in “low profile” mode a bit better, since it’s less radar focused. The more obvious difference can be seen by looking at the warhead, or expanding the acronym. ADATS stats for Air Defense Anti Tank System, and it has a curious warhead that combines a fragmentation effect with a shaped charge effect. I’m honestly not sure why they did this–it adds a bunch of cost and gives a capability that, while cool, doesn’t seem to be prima facie useful all that often. Also, given how much armor MBTs tend to carry, I’m not sure how effective it would be on the off chance an enemy tank platoon stumbles upon a SHORAD unit. It seems like it would be easier to just issue some Javelin missiles to the air defense units for close-in protection. Or just have some regular Bradleys handy.

I’m also a little curious as to what the dual-effect warhead added to the cost of both the project and to the costs of the individual missiles themselves. Again, a simple fragmentation warhead seems like it would have helped a lot in terms of costs, but I can’t do a counterfactual comparison.

Which brings us to the verdict. This is hard. On the one hand, ADATS is a pretty cool system. On the other, I can’t help but think that a simpler, antiaircraft only system makes more sense. Plus, it’s currently competing with things like SL-AMRAAM, which near as I can reckon is roughly the same cost and provides proven kinematics, better range, and a fancy active seeker. SL-AMRAAM in the Bradley-ADATS vehicle/turret unit would be pretty cool though. There’s probably some cool wargaming one could do to see which guidance system would be more effective.

Verdict: Referred back to Ordnance Board for further analysis.2

1.) Why the Canadians got theirs but we didn’t is beyond me. Seems if it could enter Canadian service, the missile should have been fine. Yes, the Canadians integrated it on an M113, but putting that turret assembly on a Bradley hull isn’t too hard.
2.) See? I don’t always approve these.

Skypirates: a zeppelin aircraft carrier construction ruleset

Posted by

Every zeppelin which has played a major role in Skypirates to date (so far, only Inconstant and Arys, where parvusimperator’s characters are based) has been designed in accordance with a fixed set of rules. We appreciate the verisimilitude this lends proceedings, for one; for another, we just really like rules for designing things. Ask parvusimperator about tanks or IFVs sometime1.

But not now. We have zeppelin rules to cover. I believe parvusimperator, to whom I owe the credit for these, believes he originally stole them from some Germans2, which is apropos. They were designed for tabletop RPG rules system Savage Worlds, which I wholeheartedly recommend if you’re looking for something opposite GURPS on the fun-GURPS axis. In traditional RPG fashion, round in the least favorable manner unless otherwise stated.

These are primarily construction rules. They were borrowed for a Savage Worlds campaign that never happened, and so the portions of the rules pertaining to acquisition and combat were never really fleshed out. If you want to use them, you’ll have to do some innovation. (If you do, let us know! We’ll put them up here for the benefit of posterity.)

Hulls

Length(m)    Width(m)    Hexes     Lifting/Payload (t)
300                50      6x1                 425/275
350                60      7x1                 670/435
400                65    8x1.5                1000/650
450                75    9x1.5                1425/925

The listed payload assumes helium as a lifting gas, military-spec internals (protected against enemy fire), and a single keel, and is 65% of the lifting capacity, rounded to the nearest 5t. For hydrogen lifting gas, add 5%. For civilian-spec internals (not protected against enemy fire), add 5%. For triple keels in the style of USS Akron and USS Macon, which permit internal engine mountings, subtract 5%. (That is to say, the maximum payload achievable is 75%, using hydrogen lifting gas and civilian internals, and the most durable build achievable is helium, milspec, and a triple keel.)

Take the product expressed in the Hexes column, and write it down as your hex-volume.

Engines
1 ton & 1 crew (slow diesel engine),
3 tons & 1 crew (normal diesel engine),
5 tons & 2 crew (fast diesel engine)

One engine pod is needed per every hex a zeppelin is long, rounded down to the nearest even number.

Gun Turrets
1/2 ton & 2 crew for cal. 30 MG
1 ton & 2 crew for cal. 40 and 50 MG
2 tons & 2 crew for cal. 60 and 70 MG
2 tons & 1 crew for flak cannon

Machine guns may be single or double turrets. Their requirements are the same, excepting acquisition costs. Turreted flak emplacements may only hold a single gun. Add a +3 modifier to shock rolls for the gunshield.

Bow/Stern Turrets
2 tons & 2 crew for cal. 60 and 70 MG
2 tons & 1 crew for flak cannon

The bow/stern mounts can hold one gun mount or one rocket mount or one aerial minelayer. Only one thing.

Broadside Guns
2 tons & 2 crew per gun

Each gun deck may mount up to six guns per side, and are retractable. Five rounds are stored at the mount; more are brought up from the holds. Broadside guns may be directed from the bridge for firing at zeppelins or ground targets within the guns’ effective range. The gun crews may fire under local control when attacking aircraft.

Broadside guns are typically flak guns, in similar calibers: usually between three and five inches (76 to 127 mm).

Bomb Rack
5 tons & 1 crew

Some military zeppelins mount bomb racks on the underside of the hull. It mounts eight hardpoints’ worth of bombs. It may not be used to fire rockets. Bombs must be accounted for in cargo. Bombs are released from the bridge.

Rocket Rack
10 tons & 2 crew

Rocket racks provide eight hardpoints for aerial rockets. Bombs may not be dropped from rocket racks. Rocket racks may be placed at the bow or stern, or to replace broadside guns. Ammunition must be accounted for in cargo. They are fired under local control.

Control Room
[Length of hexes of the zeppelin / 2] tons and [Length of hexes of the zeppelin] crew
The bridge includes a chart room and a radio room. Sometimes, military zeppelins place these rooms separately. Civilian zeppelins always place them in the control gondola.

Cabins
1 ton & 1/4 crew

Crew are required only for passenger cabins. Accommodations aboard a military zep do not require crew.

For your one ton, you may have any one of the following: one luxury cabin (for one person, a first-class passenger or senior officer), one suite (each person requires one ton of accommodation; a suite for five people weighs five tons), one double cabin (aboard a passenger zeppelin, tourist class), one quadruple cabin (economy class), or one cell for up to eight prisoners.

Crew Rooms
2 tons & 1 crew

For your two tons and one crew, you may have any one of the following: one extra chart room, one extra radio room, one kitchen section (one section required for every ten cabins), one dining room section (one section required for every ten cabins), one lounge (suitable for ten tourist or economy class passengers, or two first-class passengers), a library (which may be expanded), an arboretum (which may be expanded), an observation deck, a briefing room or flight command center, or a science laboratory (which may be expanded).

Aircraft
We have a set of aircraft design rules which are not reproduced here. It suffices to say, for the remainder of this post, that zeppelin-borne aircraft come in airframe sizes ranging between 4t and 15t, and their weight in tons is their size for the purposes of these rules.

Internal Skyhooks
[3*size] tons & 5 crew

A traditional docking hook used to launch and recover planes: the skyhook drops planes out the bottom of the zeppelin, and extends into the air below the bottom of the zeppelin to recover them. Each skyhook may launch or recover one plane per round. The size specifies the largest plane that may be launched or recovered.

External Skyhooks
[2*size] tons & 1 crew

Skyhooks mounted outside the zeppelin’s hull, frequently used for emergency exits or as emergency landing spaces. Each may hold one plane, its maximum size specified by the skyhook’s size. The pilot gains entry to the zeppelin by means of a small ladder. Moving large cargo between an external skyhook and the zeppelin’s interior is impossible.

Launch Bay
[5*size] tons & 15 crew

Launch bays are used in the largest military zeppelins. Each may launch two planes per round, but may not be used to recover aircraft. The size specifies the largest plane that may be launched.

External Refueling Rig
[2.5*size] tons & 3 crew

Refueling rigs are external skyhooks with plumbing to refuel docked planes. Each plane may be refueled in one round. (It therefore takes a three-round cycle: recover in round one, refuel in round two, launch in round three.) Otherwise, they function as external skyhooks.

Hangar
[ size of air wing ] tons & 1 crew/10 tons

The size of the air wing refers to the sum of its weights. The hangar is an internal space in the zeppelin with room for parking, access to the launching systems, and facilities for refueling and rearming planes, as well as stowage for aircraft stores. Any zeppelin with a launch bay or an internal skyhook must have a hangar.

Repair Bay
[2*size] tons & 5 crew

Repair bays contain tools and equipment for disassembling, maintaining, and repairing planes. A hangar and an internal skyhook are prerequisites. The size specifies the largest plane which may be serviced.

Provisions
1/2 ton food/water/etc. per person per month.
1 ton per plane per combat sortie. (Includes fuel and ammunition, as required.)
1/2 ton per plane per non-combat sortie. (Includes fuel only.)
1 ton of ammunition per zeppelin gun of any type.

Engine Speed

Engine          Fuel/day (tons)  Speed (hexes)   Speed (mph full/economy)
Diesel, slow      Volumehex / 5              1                     50/10
Diesel, normal    Volumehex / 2              2                     65/15
Diesel, fast          Volumehex              3                     80/20

For travel, engines can be run at full speed, consuming the listed amount of fuel per day. They may also be run at economy speed, using the second number in the speed column and consuming half the listed amount of fuel per day.

Fuels
Engines may be fueled by blaugas, gasoline, or diesel, which are identical for our purposes. (Zeppelins which run gasoline engines may share fuel with the air wing.)

Cargo Hold
[any size] + 2 tons

The two tons are for handling equipment, and do not count toward capacity.

External Cargo Platform
[any size] + 2 tons

Smaller freight zeppelins sometimes use an external platform mounted under the hull. These are much cheaper for a given capacity, and may also be used as an emergency hangar for small planes. The cargo capacity is 1.5 * size. The two tons are for handling equipment, and do not count toward capacity.

Cargo Winch
[2 tons + cargo weight] & 2 crew

A cargo winch lowers a section of the cargo hold floor beneath the zeppelin, which may be used to easily load cargo without the use of ramps or slings.

With modifications, the platform may be used as an emergency landing point. Add one ton to the mechanism. The winch’s rated capacity must be twice the size of the plane. A plane making an emergency landing on a cargo platform loses its engines.

Zeppelin Harpoons
[5 + length in hexes of largest zeppelin which can be towed] tons & 4 crew

Intended to tow disabled zeppelins for repair, pirates sometimes modify the towing mechanisms to serve as grappling harpoons.

1. Or just read his posts here.
2. As he said, “IIRC, ja.”

Retro Air Force Procurement

Posted by

Here’s a change of pace from our regular procurement game. Let’s go back to a time before precision guidance was all the rage. A time when Saigon was still Saigon (albeit about to fall). A time when a favorite marching cadence was ‘Napalm Sticks to Kids’. A time when the Soviet Union was extant and terrifying and, yes, a time when Gerald Ford was in the white house. Welcome to the mid-1970s. Borgundy is still a reasonably well off European nation, a proud NATO member squaring off against the Warsaw Pact. We’d like a big new frontline fighter for the defense of our realm, and the best and latest in advanced western types are both American: the Grumman F-14A and the McDonnell Douglas F-15A. Let’s compare them, and see which comes away with the win. Remember, it’s 1975, so we can’t let any knowledge of how these two planes shook out affect our choice.

We’ll start with the Grumman offering, since it’s newer. The Grumman F-14 can be thought of as the ultimate fleet defense fighter. It’s built more or less to the same concept that gave birth to the fabulously successful F-4 Phantom II, but supersized, and uses the latest aerodynamics technology. It’s designed to have a long operating range and endurance, so it can fly a good distance out from the carrier, from where it will engage Soviet bombers before they can launch their missiles. To that end, it has plenty of fuel storage, high-tech swing wings for good speed and short-field performance, the most powerful fighter radar in the world (the AWG-9), and the longest range air to air missile in the world (the AIM-54 Phoenix). The Phoenix even has a fancy active seeker, unlike those lame semi-active seekers on the USAF standard Sparrow missile. Like the Phantom, the Tomcat has a two-man crew, one pilot, and one to operate the advanced radar system. It has the same TF30 turbofans as the F-111, however. Peformancewise, the F-14 was designed to match the Phantom as far as speed and maneuverability goes, but have a main armament that’s much longer ranged. And unlike the F-4, it does have a gun–the US Navy learned its lessons from Vietnam.

The McDonnell Douglas F-15 is designed to be the ultimate air superiority fighter, something the US Air Force hasn’t had in years. It is designed to be able to beat any current or projected future fighter type in air to air combat. The US Air Force took the Vietnam lessons to heart too. The Eagle is faster than the F-4, and is second only to the MiG-25 in top speed. It’s more agile overall than the F-4 or the F-14 because of it’s superior thrust to weight ratio and structural tolerance for more Gs. Like the F-14, it has a 20mm M61 Vulcan cannon with plenty of ammunition for a shootout or a strafing run. It does not carry the Phoenix missile, instead it carries Sidewinders and Sparrows, just like the Phantom. Unlike the Phantom and the Tomcat, the Eagle is a single seat fighter. It’s radar, while more advanced than the APQ-72 on the Phantom, is less powerful than the AWG-9 of the F-14. However, automation allows a single pilot to use it effectively. The F-15 was designed with offensive counter-air sweeps in mind, just like USAF F-4s flew in Vietnam.

So how do these two compare? Contractwise at about this time, they’re dead even. The Shah of Iran chose the F-14, the Israelis chose the F-15. Which will we choose? Well, the F-14 has the better sensor suite by far, with the AWG-9 being able to track 24 targets simultaneously, and attack up to six with Phoenix missiles. It even has look-down/shoot-down capability. The Tomcat also has an infrared search and track system mounted under the nose to help with target identification. While the F-15 also has a look-down/shoot-down capable radar in the APG-63, it has less range, simultaneous tracking capability, and simultaneous engagement capability. What it does have are a number of semiautomatic modes that make it very easy for a single crewman to employ in combat. The F-14 was designed to operate (more or less) on it’s own on extended patrols protecting a carrier battle group, or covering a Vietnam-style strike package from Yankee Station. The F-15 was designed with the significant USAF support assets of AWACS and jamming aircraft in sweeps to support strike packages, again, as in Vietnam. It also has a superior IFF system. Recent experience in the air war over Vietnam has demonstrated that beyond visual range methods are not as guaranteed as the missile manufacturers claim. The long-range AIM-54 was designed to kill bombers, and we are somewhat skeptical of its ability to effectively kill agile enemy fighters at range.

Vietnam demonstrated that air combat maneuvering capability is important, and the F-15 excels here. Part of this is because it’s a lighter, smaller plane. It carries less fuel. It’s structure is also rated to handle more G-force than that of the F-14. The F-15 also has far superior engines. In order to cut costs, the US Navy tried to re-use as much as it could from the colossal failure that was the F-111B, and that included the engines. However, not only does this give the F-14A a rather anemic thrust-to-weight ratio, but the TF30 is also very prone to compressor stalls at high angles of attack. It was never designed for a platform that would maneuver aggressively. And because the Tomcat’s engine nacelles are widely spaced, in order to provide room ot carry the big AIM-54 missiles, a compressor stall in one engine can lead to a flat spin, which is very difficult to recover from.1

The Eagle is the cheaper fighter to procure, but the numbers I found may be colored by its larger production run. It isn’t that much cheaper though; they’re certainly in the same price class (like a Porsche and a Lamborghini). The F-15 is significantly cheaper to operate and maintain. It has a number of design elements that simplify maintenance, and it doesn’t have the complicated variable geometry wings.2 This translates into increased availability for sorties, and (of course) more sorties for the money.

Famously, the F-15’s unofficial design motto was “Not a pound for air to ground”, though this is probably apocryphal. As seen by the minor changes needed for the F-15E, McDonnell Douglas certainly put in enough structural strength for ground attack missions. The Tomcat is also capable of carrying plenty of bombs, though neither the USN nor the USAF has bothered to integrate any air to ground weapons into the stores management system. So that’s a wash. As far as air to air armament goes, the biggest difference is the massive (but also very expensive) AIM-54 on the Tomcat. In terms of number of missiles, both planes field eight air to air missiles. In the ‘small advantages’ column, the F-15 carries more ammunition for its 20mm cannon, with 940 rounds to the F-14’s 675.

So, what is the final decision? We’re going for the Eagle. Better air combat capabilities against fighters and lower operating costs put the F-15 ahead of the F-14 for us. The offensive counter air mission is a much bigger need than a long range interceptor. And if the Soviets come at us hard, it will probably be by land, and we’ll want to neutralize their frontline aviation while bombing the living daylights out of their second echelon, reserves, and logistics. We’ll actually need another plane for the mud-moving; the Eagle is expensive enough without us trying to make it into a ground attack aircraft on our own.

1.) See Top Gun for a hands-on demonstration of a nasty flat spin. At least it’s not inverted. Or you could, but this is 1975, and it hasn’t been made yet.
2.) Stepping out of 1975 for a moment, we can see this reflected in that the USAF still operates F-15s, but the USN phased the F-14 out of service in 2006. But we have no way of knowing that in 1975 of course. 2006 is a long way off in the future; people probably commute in flying cars or something weird like that.

The Crossbox Podcast

Posted by

So called because parvusimperator wanted a Clarkson-esque name like ‘Crossfire’, and I was thinking something utilizing the current branding, like ‘Soapbox’. You get the middle of the road solution nobody wants1.

Today’s show features: the US Navy’s Bad Idea™, surprisingly similar handgun choices, and wargames that get us good.


(Download)

1. I guess it sounds kind of like the box in which you might cross-examine someone, which does capture the usually-adversarial nature of our little chats.

Resurrected Weapons: AGM-136 Tacit Rainbow

Posted by

A standard problem for a SEAD1 escort package is that if the enemy figures out what’s about to go down, they may shut off their SAM system radars, which makes it very hard to engage these radars. Switching off the radar has been as standard trick to spoil an antiradar2 missile (ARM) shot since the Vietnam War. Normally, one would expect SEAD aircraft to have to loiter over the target area, which is far from ideal. Loitering SEAD aircraft are vulnerable to fighters or short range IR guided missiles. An alternative concept was put forward in the ’80s with AGM-136.

AGM-136, which went by the unbearably dorky name ‘Tacit Rainbow’, was designed to provide an ARM that could loiter. Built on a cruise-missile type frame, it could be carried in the bomb bay of a B-52 or on the pylons of a wide variety of multirole fighter and strike aircraft. There was also a variant to be launched from the M270 MLRS. The idea was to use these reasonably low-observable platforms en masse against an enemy air defense network. If they found targets, they would seek out and destroy them like any other ARM. Otherwise, they could loiter in the target area waiting, making sure that the enemy did not switch on their SAM radars to engage the incoming strike package.

Like many advanced weapons of the late Cold War, the AGM-136 hit a number of cost overruns, because it had to fly in a preprogrammed area, recognize, and prioritize hostile radar emitters and then engage them. It was eventually cancelled in 1991. Advances in cheap microelectronics since the late 80s, plus the abundance of cheap GPS receivers, would make the AGM-136 a much easier development project today. It’s a nice supplement to EW aircraft like the EA-18G Growler, and would greatly help the survivability of strike packages while not requiring a correspondingly large investment in specialized platforms. With the increasing proliferation of higher-end air defense systems (even Iran has S-300s now), our strike packages will need all the help they can get. A platform like the AGM-136 is a great way to extend the survivability of non-stealthy platforms like the Viper or the Super Hornet.

The one thing that we’d like to investigate further is the ground-launched variant. In general, we would question whether the system would have enough fuel to fly from forward artillery positions to the target area and loiter while a strike package does its business. Near the front lines, we would not expect much in the way of powerful, long range air defense systems, simply because they would have to move quite a bit. On the other hand, they might prove to be cheap insurance over annoyingly potent short range systems like SA-15.

Verdict: Approved by Borgundy War Department Procurement Board, pending a rename.

1) Suppression of Enemy Air Defense
2) More often this is rendered Antiradiation missile, but I always thought Antiradar sounded better, and takes less explaining to the non-expert reader. Plus it’s easier to type.

Terminated Weapons: TOW

Posted by

Here’s another one for the chopping block. The BGM-71, Tube-launched Optically-sighted Wire-guided (TOW) missile. It’s been a classic antitank missile of the United States and its allies since 1972. It is time for it to go.

The TOW was a solid performer in its day. It’s killed plenty of tanks, and its received plenty of upgrades. Current versions have either a tandem-warhead, or a flyover-top-attack flight profile, with explosively formed penetrator warheads. So they’re reasonably capable of dealing with modern tanks with their fancy explosive reactive armor (or tons of composites). All that said, they’re obsolete and it’s time to give them the boot.

The TOW is heavy. Modern versions weigh 22.6 kg (just shy of 50 lbs) and that’s only the missile. You also have to add in the weight of the launch tube, its tripod mount and the sighting unit, which comes to about 93 kilos (204.6 lbs) altogether. So it’s really pushing the term ‘man portable’. Plus, it still uses SACLOS wire guidance. A Javelin missile has a lighter launcher and is fire and forget, so the missile team can move after launching. Which is good, because they’re position is painfully obvious due to the massive cloud of missile exhaust. Even if the team is killed, the Javelin will still track the target; killing a SACLOS missile crew (or even getting them to flinch) by shooting back at them is a great way to spoil their missile shot. Another bonus feature for the Javelin is that it doesn’t have a massive backblast, so it can be fired from enclosed spaces, or if there’s some stuff behind the missile that you’d rather not expose to hot exhaust (dry grass comes to mind). Even though TOW has a range advantage on Javelin, the Javelin is still a much more effective weapon system for the combat infantryman. The range limitations of Javelin are due to limitations of the command launch unit, not the missile itself; we can probably expect Block 2 improvements to rectify this shortcoming. Plus, depending on the theater of operations, long sightlines may not be available for this to become an issue. The Javelin’s range limitations are unlikely to be an issue in cities or in the forests of Central Europe.

The heavy TOW makes a lot more sense on a ground vehicle, where the weight matters a lot less. Here though, it faces stiff competition from Javelin (and Spike). The fire-and-forget capability of these missiles allows them to move after launching, which is nice if you’re shooting from something thin-skinned and an enemy tank has taken notice of the massive launch signature. While guiding a TOW, a launching vehicle is forced to be immobile. First, the TOW tracker isn’t really set up to handle a moving launch platform and a moving missile in its target track. It is designed around a fixed point of reference. While a vehicle could move slowly and not screw up the guidance too badly, this won’t help them live much, and may cause the wire to snag on some obstacle as the missile attempts to correct for launch platform movement and the target track. Breaking the wire gives you a rather slow rocket, which isn’t overly helpful either.

What about on helicopters? Aerial platforms were a very common user of the TOW missile in Vietnam and elsewhere. However, we now have the vastly superior Hellfire missile, which uses either semi-active laser homing or millimeter-wave active radar. The active radar version (‘Longbow Hellfire’) gives us the cool fire-and-forget capability of the Javelin or the Spike, which lets the helicopter switch targets or evade enemy fire. Even the semi-active laser homing version has advantages over the TOW, though. The Hellfire missile has about twice the range of the TOW, travels about half again as fast as the TOW, and even with the SALH version, multiple targets can be engaged very rapidly. Hellfire variants also have alternative warheads, including versions with fragmentation-augmented shaped charge warheads and thermobaric warheads. This means that the Hellfire missile family can engage more types of targets on the battlefield.

For even more ways to kill tanks, we can look to the UK’s Brimstone missile. This missile is roughly Hellfire sized, and can be fired from helicopters or fixed wing aircraft, even fast movers. It distinguishes itself by being able to fly to a designated area and seek out armor using an active radar seeker. From a rotary winged platform, it has almost three times the range of TOW. And, unlike TOW, it can be fired from fixed wing aircraft (for even more range).

So there we go. TOW really doesn’t fit in anymore. It was a good system in the 70s, and upgrades did a good job of keeping it relevant (unlike the Harpoon). But there are contemporaries that fill its roles better now, so it’s time for TOW to tap out.

Resurrected Weapons: CBU-98/B

Posted by

Here’s a new segment that’ll highlight some old weapons that never made it to the big time. I’ll also give my verdict of whether or not I approve of it as a possible system for Borgundy. Our first weapon is a runway denial cluster munition, the CBU-98/B. The idea here was to combine two other, proven effective systems in one cool bomb.

The first of those is the French Durandal bomb. This bomb was designed with a parachute to slow it’s fall as it oriented itself groundward. Then, a rocket motor would fire and drive the penetrator warhead into the runway surface before detonating, to maximize the destruction. It’s a pretty cool weapon designed to put really big holes in runways. Runways are great targets, because you can’t move them, you can’t hide them, and you can’t really armor them. Perfect! Except that runways, being a big strip of asphalt or concrete, aren’t all that hard to repair. The key is usually making lots of widespread destruction.

That’s where the second weapon comes in, the British HB 876 mine. Dropped from Hades cluster bombs (a BL755 variant) or from JP223 dispensers, these small mines are scattered about a runway. They have a nifty dual effect warhead: one part is a Misznay-Schardin Effect warhead that generates an explosively formed penetrator, and the other part is a pretty standard fragmentation jacket. So it combines antivehicle and antipersonnel effects into one cool mine. The bottom has a self-righting device to insure that it deploys appropriately.

The CBU-98/B was designed to put these two together in one bomb. First, for runway demolition, it contained eight BLU-109/B penetrator submunitions. They function exactly like the Durandal, except are significantly smaller, having 2.95 kg HE warheads instead of Durandal’s 115 kg (total) twin charges. But hey, you can put a bunch of them in one bomb. Additionally, the CBU-98/B also contained 24 HB 876 mines to cause problems for combat engineers trying to repair the runway. The whole package went in a standard SUU-64/B dispenser and weight about 385 kg or so.

So what do we think of this weapon? We really like it. Putting runways out of action is an important mission, and we do like penetrator weapons and cluster effects. They have the bonus effect of pissing off the hippies, which is good. Some questions of cost remain, as do whether or not the increased amount of damage when compared to a comparable sortie of more conventional bombs is significant enough to warrant the procurement. My instincts tell me this is probably the case. You could get more destruction with a bunch of bigger conventional bombs with unitary warheads, but a set of CBU-98s are going to take up fewer pylons and weigh less. It would also be a useful cruise missile warhead, saving aircraft the dangerous and difficult runway overflight mission.

Verdict: Approved by Borgundy War Department Procurement Board.

Resurrected Weapons: AGM-124 Wasp

Posted by

The cold war ended before a lot of nifty weapons could get into production. Like many of them, the AGM-124 Wasp was intended to kill Soviet tank forces and reduce the margin of superiority that the Red Army enjoyed. In addition to never throwing anything away (like that crazy relative you have), the Soviets tended to attack in echelons. Since they had numerical superiority (admittedly, partially due to having a ton of old stuff lying around), they could attack in a broad front, and then have another broad front waiting to hit you again, and they still had reserves to throw at you. NATO’s plan was to counter asymmetrically, and they had a wide variety of projects under way in the 80s. The American ones were known under the umbrella “Assault breaker,” and one of them is going to get looked at here.

The AGM-124 Wasp was intended to be used in a swarm. Beat numbers with numbers. It was a small, lightweight missile, to be carried in big pods beneath ground attack aircraft and lobbed in an area en masse. From there, the Wasp’s millimeter wave radar seeker would take over, hunting down targets and destroying them. Data is spotty; I’m not sure if it had a tandem warhead or not, or if the idea was to hit the Russian tanks with enough missiles so as to not have to care about whatever ERA the Russians had mounted. Also, in the 80s, fewer Soviet tanks had ERA mounted.

What do we think of this weapon now? If anything, it’s an even better idea. Modern sensors being what they are, millimeter wave seekers and tandem shaped charges are a bit cheaper, and avionics have improved to where feeding data on a target area is a lot easier. Preprogrammed target data wouldn’t be needed to the extent that it would in the 80s. If made today, the Wasp would be a cheaper, spammable version of Brimstone, and that’d be awesome. I’d probably go for a tandem warhead, but don’t need to go too fancy with these. Keep it simple. Keep it cheap. Load them up in pods under your multirole aircraft of choice and let fly against staging areas. This is probably well beyond the usual “Yes, buy” sort of thing and into the “Shut up and take my money” realm. At least if you’re worried about enemy armor.

…are you not?

Verdict: Approved by Borgundy War Department Procurement Board