The Strategypage is a comprehensive summary of military news and affairs.
 News As History - December 2, 2008

Dunnigan's and Bay's Latest
Advertisement
New Strategy - Wargames at Discount Prices
1.Squad Battles: Winter War
2.Silent War
3.Manoeuvre
4.Gallic Wars
5.Fast Action Battle: The Bulge

100+ Computer and Board games all with free shipping.
 
 
 

Online Giving

Utah SEO Firm

Xango

Smiley Gifts for Babies
Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use
Warplane Weapons Discussion Board
Sign In   Return to Topic Page
Subject: Range of AC rockets?
wagner95696    1/2/2004 7:05:31 PM
Does anyone know the practical effective range of heavy aircraft rockets, such as the Zuni, against naval targets? I don't mean the maximum range but the range at which an attack would normally be made at targets. I assume it would vary with target speed.
 
Quote    Reply
 Latest
 News 		  Most
 Read 		  Most
 Commented		  Hot
 Topics

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title     Sort in Reverse Order Posted
Pages: 1 2 3   NEXT
gf0012-aus    RE:Range of AC rockets?   1/2/2004 7:48:09 PM
You wouldn't want to send any aircraft armed with zunis against a ship armed with a CIWS. You could/would use it against brown water vessels and unarmed commercial shipping. (although there was the Forrestal incident, but that was facilitated by the zuni striking a buddy fuel tank on its misfire) They tended to be used at a standoff distance. The aust govt was using them as small boosters for space research, but they had second stages added IIRC.
 
Quote    Reply

Aussiegunner    RE:Range of AC rockets?   1/3/2004 10:40:29 AM
I don't know the answer to your question, but do know that an Argentinean Aermacchi 339 pilot got that coutries highest award for bravery, when he attacked British warships in San Carlos water with Zunis whilst on an armed recon mission. Given the correctness of what gf0012-aus has just said about using Zunis against well-armed warships, even if they "only" had Sea Cats, 4.5mm's and twin 40mm bofors in 1982, I think he deserved it. Those Argentinean pilots almost made up for the lousy performance of the rest of that countries armed forces by themselves.
 
Quote    Reply

wagner95696    RE:Range of AC rockets?   1/4/2004 7:51:58 PM
Why I asked was that I believe effective range of Phalanx is about 3,000 meters and the older 40x60 Bofors are 4,000-4,500 meters so I wondered if it would be possible to score hits from beyond that range. However dangerous it would have been it certainly would have been safer that dropping 500 pound iron bombs while pulling up from 50 feet altitude. The the Argentines used 'lob'or toss bombing techniques against the warships in the Falklands or did they pull up to bombing altitude before reaching the ships and then making a level bomb run? I have never seem comments on how fast the ships were moving or whether they were even taking evasive maneuvers. From the few photos I have seen they could not have been moving very fast as there does not seem to be much of a wake.
 
Quote    Reply

Mark F    RE:Range of AC rockets?   1/4/2004 10:26:35 PM
The Argentine AF bombed low and straight - no lobbing. This is why so many of the bombs failed to fuse. Given the limited sea room and the fact that many of the targets were busy offloading troops and supplies, it is not likely that much manuevering was going on. If your worried about evading small caliber gunfire, an LGB or Maverick would seem a better option than free-flight rockets.
 
Quote    Reply

wagner95696    RE:Range of AC rockets?   1/9/2004 12:35:29 AM
I agree that a LGB or Maverick would probably been better than Zuni's but I mentioned Zuni's because apparently the Argies actually had them but didn't have LGB's or Mavericks, nor should we have expected them to have anything comparable. After all, if they couldn't handle a complicated piece of technology like a bomb fuse why should we expect them to develop something as sophisticated as LGB's or Maverick class missiles?
 
Quote    Reply

Mark F    RE:Range of AC rockets?   1/9/2004 10:14:19 AM
It's more likely that Argentina employed SNEB's, but the most common weapons - and the most lethal - were Mk 82 and Mk 83 free-fall retarded bombs. Your statement regarding the supposed inability of Argentine ordnance officers to handle bomb fuses is as arrogant as it is inaccurate. The United States refused to provide the technical information necessary for Argentina to use these weapons against ships at the ultra-low altitudes they were being employed at. It has nothing to do with incompetence. Argentina, in case you didn't know has a defense industry that can and does produce jet aircraft, tanks, artillery, ammunition, advanced surface warships and submarines and yes, even locally designed guided missiles.
 
Quote    Reply

wagner95696    RE:Range of AC rockets?   1/10/2004 12:37:11 AM
If I were going to use these bombs in combat I would first have loaded some on planes and conducted a few live fire tests to see how they would perform. That would give time to either change the fuzing or the attack tactics. The fact that they went into battle with what were essentially 'untested' weapons does not speak well for the professionalism of those in charge. This is all the more true if, as you have stated, the US refused to provide the technical information needed to use these bombs in low level attacks. Apparently the Argentines were aware that they were operating 'blind' and still did nothing to remedy the situation. It is not like they didn't have plenty of time as it was they who initiated the war according to their own timetable.
 
Quote    Reply

Mark F    I don't even know where to start.   1/10/2004 11:39:55 AM
Truly one of the most ignorant statements I have read on this site in a while.
 
Quote    Reply

gf0012-aus    Argies   1/11/2004 3:39:08 PM
In defence of the argies they did have pilots put up a credible fight. they did spend some substantial time with their skyhawks practising low level launches when they worked out that the UK forces searchwater radar was ineffective at lower altitiudes. the problem was hardware in the main, not a lack of fortitude (although there were clearlt some mirage pilots who were focussed on self preservation issues). Not too dissimilar a problem at the hardware level that the US had with its sub launched torpedoes in WW2 (85% failure rate IIRC)
 
Quote    Reply

Mark F    RE:Argies   1/11/2004 4:14:45 PM
Argentine pilots fought bravely adn fought well, of that there is no question. As for technical problems, both sides had plenty of those. If we are going to bash the Argies for not being able to properly set fuzes for which they were not even provided basic technical manuals, why not criticize the RN for having an air defense missile whose launchers were prone to jamming and which could not engage low flying aircraft. Or for having a point-defense shipborne anti-aircraft missile that could not engage crossing targets. Or for not knowing if fire mains on ships were best unified or distributed... and so on and so on.
 
Quote    Reply

gf0012-aus    Argies - Mark F   1/11/2004 4:23:47 PM
yep, perfect wars are always fought on paper - after the event... ;)
 
Quote    Reply

Slade    RE:Argies   1/24/2004 8:54:01 AM
IIRC in Air War South Atlantic the author claimed part of the fusing difficulty was an Argentinian Air Force vs Navy thing, the navy had retarded bombs and practiced with them at these levels and the air force didn't. The AAF may even have been using standard low drag bombs with high-drag fuse settings and attempted high-drag release methods.
 
Quote    Reply

wagner95696    RE:Range of AC rockets?   3/14/2004 10:22:00 PM
Sorry for the delayed response. I have been out of the country. Has anyone ever come up with an answer to my original question, effective tactical range of unguided rockets? Also, why, if it would be foolish to send someone armed with rockets against a ship armed with CIWS, wasn't it equally foolish to send planes loaded with free fall bombs?
 
Quote    Reply

Aussiegunner    RE:Range of AC rockets?   3/15/2004 5:36:34 AM
"Also, why, if it would be foolish to send someone armed with rockets against a ship armed with CIWS, wasn't it equally foolish to send planes loaded with free fall bombs." It wasn't foolish, because apart from 5 Exocets, free fall bombs were all the Argies had. In using them they managed to sink half a dozen ships of argueably the most professional navy in the world, whilst damaging many more and almost stopping the British in San Carlos water, permenantly. That is a tremendous military feat, that can be put down to the bravery of the pilots involved. The problem with the bomb fuses was an airforce only problem. The airforce pilots only learned to attack ships once hostilities had started, so the fact that they destroyed any is pretty impressive. The use of non-retarded British 1000lb'ers was a mistake, but they didn't know they weren't exploding until after the op, as the ships smokestacks made them look as though they were on fire. The British press at the time did actually report that the bombs weren't exploding, but it wasn't picked up by Argie intel. That is more of a reflection of that part of the military than on the airforce itself. As for the navy Skyhawks, they used their Snakeyes with devestating effect. The other reason that the British got away without loosing the war, was that the Argies attacked the warships more often than the transports. That has been put down to fast approaches at high-speed, between hills, giving them insufficient time to identify individual fleet units. The poms were very lucky. The attacks on the Sir Galahad, Sir Tristram and Atlantic Convoyer(the last with an Exocet), very seriously compromised the operation on land, knocking out half of a battalion of troops and most of the task-forces helicopters. A couple of more bombs in the right places and the Falklands would be an Argentine posession.
 
Quote    Reply

Aussiegunner    RE:Range of AC rockets?   3/15/2004 5:55:02 AM
All of the military sites I have seen don't give a range for rockets, just a burn-out range for the motor (typically about 350-400 metres). I guess it depends on the angle of attack and altitude of the fighter, with a direct line-off site being a requirement. To get a clear shot from low-level, you would need to be pretty close.
 
Quote    Reply
Pages: 1 2 3   NEXT

StrategyWorld.com© 1998 - 2008StrategyWorld.com. All rights Reserved. StrategyWorld.com, StrategyPage.com, FYEO, For Your Eyes Only and Al Nofi's CIC are all trademarks of StrategyWorld.com Privacy Policy