Originally Posted by FormerFlake
DIRCM/LAIRCM does more for the politicians and CAS than for the crew. It sound impressive, but of course no one can tell you what it does. But it must be good becuase it is expensive. A bit like stealth.
I know what it does & can explain it simply. The problem is not a capability limitation - the system is very capable - it has serious practical operating limitations that many operators are unfamiliar with - it is my belief that it is overrated due to these limitations. Jury's still out on LAIRCM...
Originally Posted by Leon Jabachjabicz
On the DIRCM issue, hot bricks and flares will most likely not fully protect you from the later bits of kit (I mean anything that was built in the last 15-20yrs). Also it won't protect you from ground fire, rockets and RPGs and alike - that's why in that last few conflicts the Tonka hasn't been anywhere near terra firma (well as far away as you can get it!). Flying at low-level is a dangerous game and you can expect to pay the ultimate price sooner or later (ask the helo mates).
Nothing will "fully protect" you - even DIRCM has a percentage of ineffectiveness in the very controlled trials. Hot bricks & flares, in the right combination, actually do surprisingly well against modern MANPADS - see Trial EMBOW referenced earlier.
DIRCM will also not protect you from "ground fire, rockets, and RPGs and alike" (in fact, no DAS kit I'm aware of will), but ESF will make taking those rounds (that you cannot defeat with 'trons) much, much safer. When hit, you don't necessarily go "bang" & are able to (hopefully) limp home.
Originally Posted by Leon Jabachjabicz
Now if we believe that ESF would have saved the latest Afghan Herc and the one at Kukes so that we could fly them again, then I might be convinced that it's worth it (also that if it definately would have saved the poor souls on XV179).
If it were down to me, I don't know where I would spend the money, but I'm pretty sure ESF is not the answer to your problems (IMHO). Maybe we should look at neutralising the source of the threat to our AT fleet as they recover (in Force Protection or something else) rather than relying on another system that gets slated when it gets fitted (a la DIRCM which you AT guys have been asking for years and are now slating it).
Won't speculate on the latest mishap. The outcome at Kukes would not have been altered by ESF. However, based on my personal experience, I believe XV179 would have stood an exponentially higher percentage survival probability had ESF been fitted. If your wing doesn't blow off - we're not talking small pieces, the entire outer wing section - you can fly the Herk - it is robust & battle-proven. So prevent the outer wing from going & I think you have a different outcome for the crew of XV179.
As for begging for DIRCM - I've been fighting it since it was announced - never believed in the technology & it doesn't do what they say - wish I could say what is wrong with it here - it might make a bunch of folks uncomfortable about its alleged effectiveness...Having said that, given the choice between ALQ-157 & DIRCM, I'd "beg" for DIRCM any day of the week & twice on Sundays.
Lastly, good luck neutralising the threat from small arms, MANPADS, RPGs, & light AAA - "heavily proliferated" doesn't even come close to describing the sheer quantity out there...
Originally Posted by nigegilb
How many ac have we lost to SAMs? There is a preoccupation with anti-missile defence.
Can think of only 1 US Herk confirmed down by MANPAD - it has been a long time ago. Believe there was a US slick that lost an engine to a MANPAD w/in the last two years at Baghdad as well, but landed (relatively) uneventfully.
You're spot on - There is a tremendous preoccupation with MANPAD threat, but as the crews on the "Ugly Baby" mission (same mission Harley 37) can attest, AAA is still a very real threat - particularly at the altitudes the Hercules operates. Because it's older technology, there is a "belief" that we've done all we can to counter AAA - we can jam the radar (if you're so kitted out), have it jammed for us (good luck on that one), or if optical, fly at night & hope they shoot at the noise & aren't receiving off-site cueing...
So if taking a few rounds of AAA is more likely than being shot with MANPADs (which I believe it is) - what can we do to mitigate that risk and protect the plane, protect the crew, and protect the passengers? Sounds like ESF, cockpit armour, & kevlar matting fit the bill nicely - none of these is expensive when compared to most blinky things that emit 'trons to protect us & other than the foam, require no further maintenance, upkeep, or care & feeding once installed...