Iran waited until Col. Chappy Sinclair passed away to try this. Otherwise this would have been a solid plot for Iron Eagle 7. Two F-16s could have downed all of these drones and rockets to the right soundtrack.

I wouldn't want to be in Iran. God has favored the Jews/Israelis since the onset of creation and when the time of the Gentiles is over, Israel will come back to Him.

quote:

Originally posted by sigmonkey:

quote:

Originally posted by 6guns:
Regarding the above, I wonder if...when? those missiles do contain nukes, what are the consequences of intercepting them? I assume there will be radiation fall out or do they have to be charged in a certain manner for the nuclear element to do it's most damage?

Depending on factors such as speed and altitude when intercepted, the likely outcome will be from a complete warhead falling and impacting the ground where little contamination from the material, to broken up in flight and scattering of same over a larger area to the "burning up" on re-entry and even wider scattering of material.

All of those can and will be cleaned up, and the danger is pretty low compared to a "intended" detonation of the weapon.

The chance of "setting one off" by intercept is about like Oppenheimer's concern about "igniting the atmosphere" chain reaction.

Not zero, but close enough to make zero pregnant.

Thanks for your thoughts, monkey.

Does it require missiles to take out drones ?

How effective would gatling guns on aircraft be?

With a swarm of slow moving drones, is this another good application of WartHog ?

https://lists.youmaker.com/lin...3SBI8Sbkr/K6IjVppaho

Iran Officials Threaten US Not to Retaliate to Its Attack on Israel

The officials warned the United States not to intervene in the escalating conflict after Tehran launched hundreds of drones and missiles.

Iran on Sunday warned Israel and the United States that it would carry out a larger attack if either country retaliates against Tehran’s overnight missile and drone attack, saying that U.S. military bases could be in its crosshairs.

Iran launched explosive drones and shot missiles at Israel late on Saturday in what has been described as its first direct attack on Israel. The Islamic regime has said that the attack was warranted after Israel’s bombing a Syrian compound in early April that left seven members of its Revolutionary Guard Corps dead.

“Our response will be much larger than tonight’s military action if Israel retaliates against Iran,” armed forces chief of staff Major General Mohammad Bagheri told state-run media on Sunday, saying that Iran warned the United States that any support of an Israeli counterattack against Iran would lead to American bases being targeted. All U.S. assets and bases in the region could be targeted, he added.
Iranian President Ebrahim Raisi sent a message praising Iran’s paramilitary Revolutionary Guard for launching the attack, claiming it had taught Israel a lesson. He also warned that “any new adventure against the interests of the Iranian nation would be met with a heavier and regretful response from the Islamic Republic of Iran.”

The general and other Iranian officials then claimed that Iran’s “operations are over” and that Tehran has “no intention to continue them” before claiming the attack successfully hit two Israeli bases.

Also Sunday, Iranian Foreign Minister Hossein Amirabdollahian said his country has no intention of continuing the military operation against Israel. “At this juncture, the Islamic Republic of Iran has no intention of continuing defensive operations,” he wrote on X, and he added: “But if necessary, it will not hesitate to protect its legitimate interests against any new aggression.”

Mr. Amirabdollahian called the attack “exercising the right of legitimate defense” and said it shows Iran’s responsible approach to “regional and international peace and security.”

He added in a news conference that Iran had notified the United States of the impending attack. “Early Sunday in a message to the White House we announced that our operation would be limited and minimalistic and aimed at legitimate defense and punishing the Israeli regime,” the minister said.
Iran vowed repeatedly that it would respond to an apparent Israeli strike on an Iranian diplomatic compound in Damascus on April 1 that killed two generals. Sunday’s assault allowed the Islamic regime to show to its citizens that it won’t stand by when its assets are attacked and that it was serious when it threatened revenge.

But Israeli officials suggested that the Iranian attack was mostly a failure, saying that most of the 300 or so drones and missiles that it launched were intercepted. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu wrote on social media that “we intercepted. We blocked. Together, we will win.”

An Israeli army spokesman, Daniel Hagari, told The Associated Press that 99 percent of the drones and various types of missiles were intercepted outside of Israeli territory. One missile caused minor damage to an air base, and another injured a 7-year-old girl, he said.

cont...

quote:

Originally posted by sdy:
Does it require missiles to take out drones ?

How effective would gatling guns on aircraft be?

With a swarm of slow moving drones, is this another good application of WartHog ?

They would have to be really slow drones!

https://www.npr.org/2022/10/18...without%20weaknesses.

Shahed drones are programmed with coordinates ahead of time and rely on GPS to hit their targets.

Farzin Nadimi is an associate fellow with The Washington Institute who specializes in the security and defense affairs of Iran. Nadimi said these drones are "fairly accurate," decently resistant to signal jamming, and difficult to detect and track using radar, but they are not without weaknesses.

"The problem with them is that they're slow," Cancian said. "They're propeller-driven and you know, like all propeller-driven drones, they're just not very fast so they're susceptible to being shot down by either missiles or by aircraft guns."

https://nypost.com/2024/04/14/...missiles-and-drones/

Nearly all threats that Israel intercepted were shot down by fighter aircraft equipped with air-to-air missiles; or by David’s Sling, an air defense system used to track and eliminate drones and medium range missiles; or by the Arrow 2 or Arrow 3 missiles — which are designed to destroy ballistic missiles in space

quote:

Originally posted by sdy:
...How effective would gatling guns on aircraft be?...

65 rounds per second for the GUA-8, 100 round per second for the M-61 (most aircraft) and 55 rounds per second for the F-35.

That's a lot of lead raining down. If done over unpopulated areas, it might be a good option, but missiles are very effective and much faster to get a firing solution, weapons away and on to the next.

The type of drones that were employed are 100kts airspeed.

quote:

Originally posted by sdy:
Does it require missiles to take out drones ?

How effective would gatling guns on aircraft be?

With a swarm of slow moving drones, is this another good application of WartHog ?

Guns can absolutely down these drones. Most of the kills are gun kills. Crashing into them can also take them out (it’s been done).
A10s are likely not a good intercept platform despite having a huge gun and deep magazine. The aircraft shooting them down needs a fast speed to reach them and maneuvering speed to engage them from a favorable angle (you wouldn’t want a burst of 30mm depleted uranian slugs going into a town because you engaged from the wrong side for example).

Overall it seems challenging. These things are between slow and medium speed and many times at very low altitude and difficult to visually acquire. There are also complex ROE as they transit through multiple countries with varying levels of support to our cause, and none of them wanting a crashed drone or excessive burst of fire hitting civilians. It’s difficult, but the dudes shooting them down signed up to do difficult shit so there you go! They’re all very excited about it.

I can’t wait to see drone interceptors start to get deployed to take down other drones. I’ll bet some cool designs are in the works.

How much do the missiles and method of deployment cost vs the drone? Seems like we need a better solution. Time to bring back the Sopwith Camel. How about a bunch of weather balloons and a giant net? Wouldn’t even have to be a net, just monofilament fishing line streamers to foul the props.

Or a much slower aircraft capable of firing a cannon loaded with wire mesh netting to foul the prop and perhaps tear off a wing.

Call Arkansas State Police...

quote:

Originally posted by sdy:
Does it require missiles to take out drones ?

How effective would gatling guns on aircraft be?

With a swarm of slow moving drones, is this another good application of WartHog ?

If there's a number of drones flying into your area or, the box you're patrolling, you're not going to slow your aircraft down to near stall-speed and attempt to get a gun-kill on a tiny target. You're not only flying much, much faster but, you use your sensors to find the target at range, get a track on it, get within range and knock-it out.


Looks like most of the drones were taken out by aircraft where ballistic & cruise missiles were taken down by Israeli air defense network. Given the slow speed of the drones, fighter aircraft had more than enough time to get off the ground and await their transit across Iraq/Syria airspace. Jordanian fighters apparently knocked-out a bunch of drones, not sure if US aircraft based in Jordan also participated. Israeli aircraft also shot down quite a few, defense officials are quite interested in how the F-35I performed, given their sensor capabilities and ability to pass the data on to the larger defense network. The cost delta between air-to-air missiles and these flying drones is still somewhat dramatic ($1m vs $200), it's not nearly as bad as ship and land based anti-air interceptors ($2-3m vs $200k) though.

True ?

https://www.jpost.com/breaking-news/article-796998

Iran informed Turkey in advance of its planned operation against Israel, a Turkish diplomatic source told Reuters on Sunday, adding that Washington had conveyed to Tehran via Ankara that any action it took had to be "within certain limits."

Turkey, which has denounced Israel for its campaign on Gaza, said earlier on Sunday that it did not want a further escalation of tensions in the region.

The Turkish source, speaking on condition of anonymity, said Turkish Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan had spoken to both his US and Iranian counterparts in the past week to discuss the planned Iranian operation, adding Ankara had been made aware of possible developments.

Earlier this week, US Secretary of State Antony Blinken spoke to Fidan to make clear that escalation in the Middle East was not in anyone's interest.

"Iran informed us in advance of what would happen. Possible developments also came up during the meeting with Blinken, and they (the US) conveyed to Iran through us that this reaction must be within certain limits," the source said.

"In response, Iran said the reaction would be a response to Israel's attack on its embassy in Damascus and that it would not go beyond this."

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/...tain-limits-n2637776

quote:

Originally posted by arabiancowboy:

quote:

Originally posted by sdy:
Does it require missiles to take out drones ?

How effective would gatling guns on aircraft be?

With a swarm of slow moving drones, is this another good application of WartHog ?

Guns can absolutely down these drones. Most of the kills are gun kills. Crashing into them can also take them out (it’s been done).
A10s are likely not a good intercept platform despite having a huge gun and deep magazine. The aircraft shooting them down needs a fast speed to reach them and maneuvering speed to engage them from a favorable angle (you wouldn’t want a burst of 30mm depleted uranian slugs going into a town because you engaged from the wrong side for example).

Overall it seems challenging. These things are between slow and medium speed and many times at very low altitude and difficult to visually acquire. There are also complex ROE as they transit through multiple countries with varying levels of support to our cause, and none of them wanting a crashed drone or excessive burst of fire hitting civilians. It’s difficult, but the dudes shooting them down signed up to do difficult shit so there you go! They’re all very excited about it.

Adding to my own comment: the USAF shot down 70+ Iranian drones last night using F-15Es; a combo of guns & missiles. Badass airmanship!

Love the Mudchickens and the people that make it all happen!

Was at Eglin and had F-15E 86-0185 and 86-0188 during testing in the late 80s. Lots of cool missions and testing. (Ring Laser Gyro, B-1B countermeasures, and many more)

I was also the "Prime Super" during Desert Storm in January 1991 testing 2000 lb various configurations on the F-15E CFT LAU-106 release using variable orifice configurations while simultaneous testing the GBU-28 on our F-111 to see which could be deployed successfully against targets in Iraq. (Met with the Wing King, DCM and DCO, got permission to be "left alone" by safety and QA, as I assured them I would run a safe and secure operation. And was granted the freedom to do so.)

The testing was to try and drop I2000 bombs in a "train" (ripple) that could impact in succession/sequence and "penetrate" to command and control bunkers of Iraqi military leadership. Was scheduled 24 missions over a 4 week time. I managed to turn aircraft to facilitate 17 missions in less than 2 weeks to prove it was not feasible, while the GBU-28 was able to succeed in that timeframe.

It's not about "winning" your program, it's about finding the solution as quickly as possible so you can "OODA".

The GBU-28 off F-111 was successful and ending the 100 hour war.

quote:

Originally posted by sigmonkey:

The testing was to try and drop I2000 bombs in a "train" (ripple) that could impact in succession/sequence and "penetrate" to command and control bunkers of Iraqi military leadership. Was scheduled 24 missions over a 4 week time. I managed to turn aircraft to facilitate 17 missions in less than 2 weeks to prove it was not feasible, while the GBU-28 was able to succeed in that timeframe.

It's not about "winning" your program, it's about finding the solution as quickly as possible so you can "OODA".

The GBU-28 off F-111 was successful and ending the 100 hour war.

Was this at Al Taji air base?

Whoever did that graph on page 144 got the icons mixed up. The cruise missile icon is in the ballistic missile category, and vice versa. It is a VERY sloppy and careless mistake, and makes me question everything about the graph (numbers, etc).

I love A-10s more than most people, but this is NOT an ideal mission for the Hawg. In the 1960s, we built ‘interceptors’ such as the F-102 and F-104. They went very fast in a straight line and were designed to shoot down Soviet bombers (relatively large, slow, and cumbersome targets) over Canada and the northern US. A ‘fighter’ is meant to maneuver (‘dogfight’) against small, fast, nimble aircraft, such as other fighters and tactical strike/attack aircraft. An ‘interceptor’ is ideal in this situation – fast enough to get to many (unmaneuvering) drones. One could expect them to be spread out, so even though they only travel at 100mph, the interceptor would have to cover a LOT of territory if he wanted to shoot down more than one or two drones. Missiles are ideal for the actual kill, but each aircraft only carries up to maybe 8 missiles (for an F-15); many carry less. Guns are useful, and here I don’t think it matters how big the gun is. An A-10’s 30mm would take a single well-placed round to down a piddly little drone. Of course, it would also take only a single 25mm (F-35) or 20mm (F-16/15/18/etc) to do the same. The A-10’s large ammo capacity would be offset (IMO, of course) by its relatively slow speed and therefore, its inability to engage many targets. Heck, a P-51 Mustang from WWII would work just as well as an A-10, being very maneuverable with adequate killing power, but lacking the speed necessary to cover a lot of ground.

As for the dangers of destroying nuclear warheads with missile interceptors. . . As stated, I think it highly unlikely for an intercepting missile to cause a nuclear warhead to detonate (and by this, I mean create a nuclear chain reaction with the power of many kilotons). Warheads are relatively small, and most interceptors probably strike the rocket body (empty fuel tanks by the time they reach the descent phase of the attack). Older missiles are designed so that the missile stays in one piece for the entire flight (such as the original Scud missile). Some newer or modified missiles are designed to have separating warheads (and decoys) to make them harder targets. Instead of one, there are now two or more targets, and the rocket body would be the larger target. Again, programming and human intervention could direct the interceptors away from the relatively harmless rocket body towards the warhead, but it still complicates the target solution.

Even if an interceptor strikes the warhead, it still wouldn’t (likely) cause a detonation. At worst, it would pulverize the warhead, causing a ‘dirty bomb’ effect. The radiological materials would be turned into dust particles (not all of them, but a bunch, with larger chunks also resulting) and scatter to the winds. At high altitude, this would likely cause them to fall over a WIDE area, diluting their effect and danger. Closer to the ground, they could cause local contamination, but nothing close to the mess a nuclear detonation would cause.