AmMerc: Negating The Air Threat

Posted on May 31, 2011 | 6 Comments

Read it all.

More than once.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

6 Responses to AmMerc: Negating The Air Threat

Rocket Glock | May 31, 2011 at 14:35 |

There are people that believe that WHEN the SHTF, they should retreat to some remote location. I believe this (as your article states) to be a bad idea because they will stick out like a sore thumb. Making them easy targets without a lot of “innocent victims” killed by friendly fire. Armies hate urban warfare and will avoid it when possible. That was my biggest fear while I was in the military anyway.
pdxr13 | May 31, 2011 at 14:50 |

re: attached image-
A-10 is a tough pig. Fortunately, A-10 is not what is coming for you while you are on foot. The nose gun is too expensive to operate against individual soldiers, as are hard-point weapons, unless there is something special going on or a juicy target of chance is identified.

If Soviet tactics that worked well in Afghanistan are any indication of what the American Empire will do, expect helicopters. They may even use old Hind helicopters (with foreign contract pilots) because they are cheap and sturdy. The Soviets were on schedule to WIN in Afghanistan before big support (see “Charley Wilson’s War” book, not movie) showed up. They were winning the ONLY WAY AFGHANISTAN CAN BE WON: by purging the land of Afghans (full camps in Pakistan). This is the only way to be certain of profitably-safe mineral/fuels extraction operations which will pay for the war.

UAV’s will still be mostly observing. A target has to be special (not just an infantryman or squad in undifferentiated territory) to deserve an expensive air-to-ground missile that will require the UAV to make a trip back home to re-arm.

The OpFor will make decisions based on info gathered by observation flights, so minimizing their effectiveness by deception/camouflage, destroying them in-flight (difficult!), wrecking aircraft & control centers, identifying pilots and service personnel, disrupting fuel and parts delivery, will all be important tactics when used together.

FreeFor must only survive to “win”, the OpFor must have total domination/cooperation within time/budget to be successful. Eventually, the bean counters will make the correct conclusion that a location can never be profitable, that domestic opinion will not allow for extermination/displacement of local populations, and the location will be ignored (victorious withdrawal) until the situation changes for the better.

Simple, huh?
J. Croft | May 31, 2011 at 19:40 |

We have enough tinkerers, makers, engineers, and other smart people that if coordinated we could produce our own surface to air missiles within the space of a couple years even in a full-on martial law scenario. A workable SAM is a steerable rocket or rocket boosted ramjet with a sensor, explosive and fuze. Engineering a weapon capable of dual use-taking on both tanks and aircraft isn’t impossible and would in fact put an ease on what would be tenuous supply and production chains.
historian | June 1, 2011 at 10:14 |

“History may not repeat itself, but it frequently rhymes!”

I’m not terribly familiar with modern weapons or warfare, but I do know something about historical weaponry, and this may be germane.

In the days of sail, in naval combat, one weapon used to attack the mobility of the enemy was chain shot, often two halves of a cannon ball joined by a length of chain, sometimes several lengths of chain joined by a ring in the center. Bar shot was similar; an iron bar joined two halves of a shot. When correctly aimed and fired, these projectiles would cut the rigging, lighter spars and sails of the enemy ships, wreaking havoc on the ability of the shiphandler to control his vessel.

I wonder what would happen if somebody were to use chain shot against a helicopter’s rotors? Admittedly, if they missed, they’d likely not get a chance to reload a muzzleloading cannon, (especially whilst an angry helicopter pilot was looking for them!) but a high speed collision between a rotor and a 300 MPS piece of flying chain couldn’t be good for the rotor. Does anyone with experience with modern technology know what might happen?
emdfl | June 1, 2011 at 20:37 |

The key is that the operators/maintainance techs of high-dollar devices are vunerable at some point during their day. And those types are MUCH harder to replace then the machines…
Sanders | June 2, 2011 at 21:14 |

I recall reading of a pissed off former Marine shooting down a police chopper that was hovering over his while he was trying to sleep, several years ago.

I believe he fired a couple shots from an M1A that brought it down.