The Sensor Fused Weapon

Most of the Taliban aren’t up in the mountains, they’re in the valleys & flat lands where most of the people live.

And you can’t very well use tanks when the Taliban are mixed in with civilians for human shields.

Most of the Taliban aren’t up in the mountains, they’re in the valleys & flat lands where most of the people live.

Tanks intimidate the Taliban…. They shrug off RPG’s. They can blow holes in thick earthen/clay type walls. The Canadians in kandahar swaer by their Leo I and Leo II tanks in theatre.

Yeah but a tank ain’t gonna be climbin’ no mountains in Aghanistan. 🙂

Speaking of Cold War Weapons, what the hell is up with tanks? Do you really need an L44-launched APFSDS round to kill a camel or shoot the turban off a taliban? Better lose the tanks too. :rolleyes:

Tanks intimidate the Taliban…. They shrug off RPG’s. They can blow holes in thick earthen/clay type walls. The Canadians in kandahar swaer by their Leo I and Leo II tanks in theatre.

SFW Warhead Aiming

Hi all:)

I’m trying to find out a few details on how the SFW works. When released the spin imparted on the submunition enables it to to have a circular scan pattern. Now when a target is detected does the warhead fuse along the axis of the weapon or can it correct for the fractional delay between target detection and warhead firing, to compensate for the slight target drift.

This is how to defeat SFW’s crude sensors.

http://www.geiger-international.com/portal/content/view/104/155/lang,en/
http://www.1camouflage.com/enu/ProductDetail.aspx?ID=45

High tech trumps Cold War relic.

Then you’ve seen camoflage defeat SFWs? Nah, didn’t think so. I wasn’t aware camo could do anything about hot engines while the tanks are moving either. Must be pretty good stuff. Speaking of Cold War Weapons, what the hell is up with tanks? Do you really need an L44-launched APFSDS round to kill a camel or shoot the turban off a taliban? Better lose the tanks too. :rolleyes:

This is how to defeat SFW’s crude sensors.

http://www.geiger-international.com/portal/content/view/104/155/lang,en/
http://www.1camouflage.com/enu/ProductDetail.aspx?ID=45

High tech trumps Cold War relic.

SFW

Thing is, the need is to stop a modern assault, not a small party. With a combined arms force you just can’t come down and strafe and drop hi-drags and napalm, not without losing a lot of birds to SEAD. BUT SFWs could be deployed ballistically, if need be. FWIW an old Titan III could loft about 11 tons – accurately. And now we got other ways to get the SFWs on target. No more big wars? Check out the PRC’s ORBAT and then ask – why?
Walt BJ

That account of the SFW was more impressive than the 16-inch battleship guns making a Syrian tank column come to a screeching halt in 1982, IMO.

The problem with the “cold war relic” line of thinking is the naive assumption that big wars will never happen again. Not something I’d want to bet my country on.

You named it. They work OK when they’re used the way they were designed to be used. That means against reasonably concentrated vehicle groups/ columns. Unfortunately for you, this is exactly what you rarely get to see in asymmetrical combat. Therefore I agree with djcross, a cold war relic.

The idea is that tanks/APCs stay grouped, otherways there are dead meat. And about asymetrical combat, many people believe that all future conflicts will be against Talibans or similar. Not to mention that modern ammo (JDAM) + Special forces did work pretty well in 2001 in A-stan.

And you are right, many weapons available today are cold war relics. They combine destructive power often thousands times greater than needed with target detection/recognition capabilities far below requirements. Your forces are perfectly capable to destroy pretty much anything. The problem is, they just don’t know what to destroy.

Well, at least the SFW did know what to destroy. As well as JDAMs/LGBs with targeting pods.
________
The cigar boss

However, SFW use in Iraq 2003 appears to be a failure because the Iraqis were dispersed, revetted and didn’t have engines running for the SFW’s IR sensors to detect. Reports make me believe their effectiveness was poor.

Really? Two SFWs destroyed 30 vehicles (including T 72s) form 100, and the crews from the other 70 surrender immediatelly. That’s a failure for you?

Today, many nations employ sophisticated camouflage netting that masks signatures that used to be detectable by IR, radar or laser.

How many nations?
________
Tube *******

Did you even watch the video? They work just fine when they’re used the way they were designed to be used. They’re no more a “cold war relic” than any other weapon designed in the last 30 years.

You named it. They work OK when they’re used the way they were designed to be used. That means against reasonably concentrated vehicle groups/ columns. Unfortunately for you, this is exactly what you rarely get to see in asymmetrical combat. Therefore I agree with djcross, a cold war relic.

And you are right, many weapons available today are cold war relics. They combine destructive power often thousands times greater than needed with target detection/recognition capabilities far below requirements. Your forces are perfectly capable to destroy pretty much anything. The problem is, they just don’t know what to destroy.

However, SFW use in Iraq 2003 appears to be a failure because the Iraqis were dispersed, revetted and didn’t have engines running for the SFW’s IR sensors to detect. Reports make me believe their effectiveness was poor.

Did you even watch the video? They work just fine when they’re used the way they were designed to be used. They’re no more a “cold war relic” than any other weapon designed in the last 30 years.

I guess I’ll have to spell it out since nobody broke the code…

SFW was one of the air-dropped munition initiatives pursued by USAF and USA starting in the late 1970s. The problem was how to blunt the advance of massive Soviet tank armies. The solution embraced by both Air Force and Army was to use scatterable mines to channelize the tank divisions, then decimate them with air-dropped and howitzer-delivered munitions.

For USAF, the mine system to channelize the tank division was GBU-89 GATOR, with a mix of AP and AT in a dispenser delivered at 200 ft AGL, 400 KIAS (I lost a lot of sleep trying to qualify the fusing mechanisms for the GATOR mines 🙁 ). For Army, it was the ADAM mine system in AP and AT flavors delivered by helicopter or cargo munitions from 155mm howitzers.

To kill the channelized, bunched-up Soviet armor, USAF developed GBU-87 CEM (I had fun improving the reliability of the bomblet fuses 🙂 ) and SFW, both using the same SUU-65 dispenser as GATOR. Army developed DPICM cargo munitions fired from 155mm howitzers and the M26 DPICM rockets for MLRS.

All of the “killer” munitions have relatively small kill footprints, less than a couple football fields in area. This worked well for bunched targets, but doesn’t work for dispersed targets. An example of success was the “Highway of Death” leading north out of Kuwait City back to Iraq in 1991. The channelized Iraqis were decimated by CEMs (I love it when hard work pays off :diablo: ). However, SFW use in Iraq 2003 appears to be a failure because the Iraqis were dispersed, revetted and didn’t have engines running for the SFW’s IR sensors to detect. Reports make me believe their effectiveness was poor.

Today, many nations employ sophisticated camouflage netting that masks signatures that used to be detectable by IR, radar or laser. SFW effectiveness has simply been overcome by advances in technology. Cold War relic.

Something not suitable/cost effective for assymetric/guerilla/goat herders.

If that’s all we ever had to worry about “cold war relic” might mean something. As it is, it doesn’t. Why isn’t every nuke in the arsenal, submarine, surface ship, etc. etc. a “cold war relic” as well? We planning on killing cavemen with Mk48s? Is the UK or France going to drop an SLBM on the Taliban? Guess we better get rid of ALL those “relics” because we’ll never need them. Right? Someone ought to let Russia and China in on the secret because they seem to be oblivious to it. Come to think of it, better add the Rafale, Typhoon, and Gripen to the list of “Cold War Relics” but apparently not PAK-FA as it didn’t have it’s gestation during the Cold War. CVNs? Relics. Patriot missiles and S-300s? Relics. Leopard and M-1 tanks? Relics. How absurd does it need to be taken? The fact of the matter is most often “Cold War Relic” is meant as a term of disparagement having little if anything to do with reality.

What exactly is a “Cold War relic”?

Something not suitable/cost effective for assymetric/guerilla/goat herders.

Would’ve been nice with something more substancial than a computer sim though..

That was a real-world event the B-52 pilot was talking about. :rolleyes:

Yep, completely useless. :rolleyes:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oSxQXs9m9Wk

Two bombs.

Would’ve been nice with something more substancial than a computer sim though..

Skeet coverage is controlled by the altitude AGL when the SUU-65 dispenser opens and airbags disperse the submunitions. But the submunitions are not networked, so multiple attacks on the same target can occur.

SFW is a Cold War relic designed to defeat Soviet tank armies on the march. Think about that and you can deduce what target sets it will and will not work against.

What exactly is a “Cold War relic”?