This is a no-brainer.  Although procurement and politics go together like ham and mutherfuckers, armed cargo craft are easily the most cost-effective CAS platforms for counter-insurgency operations or other situations when the threat from enemy aircraft and SAMs are absent and  MANPADS are minimal.

 

Mounting the kit on pallets is genius and offers incredible flexibility.  Given the proven effectiveness of the AC130 I have been wondering if the marines will ever modify C2s  as mini-Spookys, especially if the majority of the mods are modular.  Perhaps the lack of hardpoints on the wing would require an upgrade to allow for sensor pods and Hellfire/griffin racks, but a 6 hour loiter time and relatively low operational cost seems like a winner.

You can no longer assume that MANPADS will be minimal, that is why CAS is moving so rapidly away from guns to missiles and smart bombs that can be launched from altitudes above the operational ceiling of the various MANPAD systems. This includes the use of strafing.

Given you are talking about the Marines, if they haven’t it is probably only because the Navy won’t let them have a C-2 to play with.

 

Just look at some similar items that they have cobbled up, and then gone to a manufacturer to produce a standard kit. The common image of Marines seems to be a Neanderthal with a knife in his teeth (which I think they encourage, having your enemy underestimate you is an advantage), but they have always been highly adaptive with a ‘good enough’ attitude, and have shown a real aptitude for adapting available equipment to overcome battlefield problems.

AC-130 and A-10 obsolete.

 

Why?

 

IR sensors/Manpads.

 

Until ships start basing active defenses against missiles, the gun is dead.  The Isreali's know this as well.  Its why their tanks etc all are now being equipped to shoot down Mortors, RPG's, Missiles and artillery.  This tech MUST be transferred to aircraft like the A-10(flying cheap tank) to keep them relevant.  UAV's won't cut it in a real war. 

 

Missiles are cool and all, but extremely expensive.  The ol' gun is the cheapest platform available by far.  The problem is getting said platform in range and keeping it alive.  Its also why artillery and tanks are not obsolete.  $$$

 

Active defenses of all forms, not just lasers, are a must and should be the #1 R&D item.  Sadly it is not.  

AC-130 and A-10 obsolete.

Hmm.. 

Why?

IR sensors/Manpads.

 

DIRCM systems work well against legacy IR seekers, multimode seekers and possible LWR home-on-jam developments are likely in next generation threats but against currently-deployed MANPAD systems there does seem to be a very reasonable level of protection. You could equally declare heli's to be obsolete for the same reason?

Until ships start basing active defenses against missiles, the gun is dead.  The Isreali's know this as well.  Its why their tanks etc all are now being equipped to shoot down Mortors, RPG's, Missiles and artillery.  This tech MUST be transferred to aircraft like the A-10(flying cheap tank) to keep them relevant.  UAV's won't cut it in a real war. 

 If you're talking about TROPHY etc, what you are describing are last ditch protective measures- the problem being that as with anything last ditch (ERA vs Tandem charge being a good example) it is often relatively trivial to render such systems ineffective, in the case of fragmentation defenses, the solution is to split the projectile into a decoy and a partially-retarded main HEAT warhead (RPG-30), with a few meters of separation the system is incapable of targeting the main warhead- that is not to say that the system will not be effective against currently-deployed ATGW's and RPG's and it's been reported that a newer system will afford some protection against the RPG-30 but there's always the possibility of kinetic LOSAT-type weapons etc. That said I'm sure TROPHY will save lives and that is to be applauded but I honestly don't see this as applicable to aircraft, there's a fundamental difference in armour levels, velocity and mount-points that makes it by far preferable to jam or spoof the incoming missile than to try and deploy a kinetic countermeasure against what might, to kill a plane, only need to be a shower of fragments. 

Missiles are cool and all, but extremely expensive.  The ol' gun is the cheapest platform available by far.  The problem is getting said platform in range and keeping it alive.  Its also why artillery and tanks are not obsolete.  $$$

 I think the major development will be a reliable and accurate conventionally-fired guided projectile, sensors are becoming cheaper all the time, as are g-resistant electronics and servos. 

Active defenses of all forms, not just lasers, are a must and should be the #1 R&D item.  Sadly it is not.  

 

Lasers have major inherent drawbacks that have kept them "just around the corner" as battlefield weapons for the past 30 years, solid state lasers are now capable of generating useful energy levels but there is still a major problem of weather and they remain woefully inefficient at delivering energy (a tiny fraction) on target at range due to atmospheric attentuation etc.

My money is on HPM systems personally because of the large surface areas that can be utilised (more efficient with better beamforming resolution) and a more versatile and wider band of the EM spectrum.. We'll see.. 

 

R 

Reactive, I agree and disagree with what you wrote.

 

You are more than correct in that part of the active defenses are IR "jamming" and burning out of said sensors on missiles etc. 100% agree. 

 

I take a different view of Trophy and equivalent systems.  It is notlast ditch defense.  WHY?  Missiles etc impact times are so quick when performing CAS that the pilot has NO TIME to react as one does when at 30k.  Not to mention they can't react much when at low altitude/velocity.  It must be automatic like Trophy.  Likewise the distance of said systems are very short.  Therefore relativevelocity is not all that great either.  It is an automatic close in defense and the Isreali version works very well so far.  I would be highly surprised if such a system wouldn't work against SAM's as well. 

 

Yes, I believe helo's are just as dead as AC-130/A-10 without true active defenses against infantry missiles.  A man carrying an equivalent of stinger, griffin, or Javelin aimed at a helicopter...  Man/Missile, score 1.  Helo 0.   I would not want to be a helo pilot against such an enemy.  Thankfully, guys on the ground can't be strong everywhere and the Helo insertion team gets to pick where and when.  Though many times to the defender its rather obvious where said helo's will be going, you just don't know when.  It should be noted that all MANPADS are going towards multiple use missiles.  IE hit a helo just as well as firing on a bunker.  Javelin obviously is used specifically for anti armor and would not be a good example for anti air.  No reason it couldn't do so except for that small range problem... You get my drift.  No miracle panacea weapons. 

 

Yes, obviously mounting such a system on an aircraft is a bit problematic.  Then again we aren't talking fighter beauty queens here where speed/stealth/maneuverability above all else is needed.  Small side track: Then again with the status of modern IR sensors and their immense resolution backed by a computer for tracking, fighters even if they have have a 0 radar cross section can be tracked quite easily at any altitude/orientation.  Back to CAS: We are talking about A-10 Warthogs and equivalent aircraft.  Could easily place such a system on the butt end of the A-10 for instance.   More weight, ug, but a more survivable aircraft.

 

Anywhoo 2c down the drain.  The pentagon knows where to find me if they really wanted to...

  It is notlast ditch defense.  WHY?  Missiles etc impact times are so quickwhen performing CAS that the pilot has NO TIME to react as one does when at 30k.  Not to mention they can't react much when at low altitude/velocity.  It must be automatic like Trophy.  Likewise the distance of said systems are very short.  Therefore relativevelocity is not all that great either.  It is an automatic close in defense and the Isreali version works very well so far.  I would be highly surprised if such a system wouldn't work against SAM's as well. 

 My understanding of the latest DIRCM systems is that they function automatically on threat-response, because they are a soft-kill method there is little or no risk associated with having them automated. They are currently fitted to AH-64D's amongst other craft and have demonstrated a high effectiveness (when combined with flares etc) against MANPADS as deployed. 

Yes, I believe helo's are just as dead as AC-130/A-10 without true active defenses against infantry missiles.  A man carrying an equivalent of stinger, griffin, or Javelin aimed at a helicopter...  Man/Missile, score 1.  Helo 0.

 

See above, DIRCM against IR seekers literally cause the missile to lose cuing, it is capable of countering threats travelling at supersonic speeds and cued by integrated MAW receivers, that is to say, they are effective at short ranges, once the seeker is disrupted the missile is next to useless. 

 

  I would not want to be a helo pilot against such an enemy.  Thankfully, guys on the ground can't be strong everywhere and the Helo insertion team gets to pick where and when.  Though many times to the defender its rather obvious where said helo's will be going, you just don't know when. 

 

They operated in Libya extensively in areas where MANPADS were abundant (and given the numbers the Libyans operated virtually anywhere was at risk), that must tell you something about the level of confidence in their defensive systems.. 

Yes, obviously mounting such a system on an aircraft is a bit problematic.

But this is the critical difference, for a HEAT warhead to be effective against an MBT it has to make physical contact generally to the turret (to avoid heavy composites), premature detonation or any perforation of the warhead renders it virtually useless (such is the nature of HEAT), that is to say, the blast fragmentation in systems like TROPHY that kills the HEAT round takes place at extremely short ranges. I have no idea how TROPHY is expected to engage KEP or EFPs (BLU-108 equivalents for example that trigger at long ranges) but the explanations I've seen suggest that the system will afford "some protection" to these threats, presumably by 'turning' the KEP/SFF slightly but.. hmm.

 

Anyway, there's a big difference when you apply this logic to aircraft, blast fragmentation warheads (that resemble a shotgun blast @ mach+) can be triggered several tens of feet away. To kill an aircraft all that has to happen is for fragments to penetrate extensively which can easily be out to 100 feet or more. Therefore, to be effective, the active countermeasure must be capable of hitting the incoming missile at distances outside the aircraft's own zone of susceptibility to fragmentation blast effects (assuming the missile warhead will likely detonate).  

 

Given the missile is an order of magnitude smaller than the target it seems to me that a hard-kill system for aircraft is an extremely big ask. You'd need to mount at least two launchers capable of rotating  180° and 90° elevation and capable of  producing a highly directional and accurate shot pattern, for want of better words, you need to mount two large calibre shotgun turrets... What you certainly can't do is use static mounts as with TROPHY etc because those systems, to provide total coverage have wide, short-ranged blast patterns for HEAT alone. I'm not by any means saying it's impossible but it is most certainly, at least in this scenario a desperate last-ditch countermeasure.   

One potential solution to the 'Trophy' solution is for the weapon system to be capable of both CAS and hard-kill duties:  Think C-130 with a 35-40mm high ROF gun and P3 ammo.  

 

The weapon would hang down from the centerline of the aircraft like a 30mm off an Apache.  (some assembly required, it may need to be 'retractable' for TO/Landing).  Slaved to an automated system for hard-kill, and to the sensor package for CAS fire missions.  

 

We know the C130 can handle a 40mm, and even a 105, so perhaps even a 57mm Bofors would not disrupt the aircraft too much.  A 57mm would give more stand-off range, even completely out of MANPADS range for an area target, or even a single building if you can afford a few stray shells.  Buzz down to 2000-2500 meters and you can take out MBTs with APDS-DU rounds hitting from a high angle of attack.

 

How fun would it be to have an AC130 with a 57mm 240 RPM belly gun and 500 rounds on board.  You could cruise at 15,000 feet for hours on end, dropping Griffins or Brimstones, er, Hellfire-ERs or dip down to a slant range of 5000 meters and let 8-12 round air-bursting salvos rain down on the bad guys.  And if a MANPADS launch is detected, 2 rounds go toward the shooter after the missile is dispatched.

DIRCM range verses explosive rounds and actual success rate...   Ah yes that is on the secrets list.  One gets rid of the missile the other just tries to spoof it.  Basically betting they can send IR EMF to overpower sensors S/N ratio. Need multiple systems as one can guarantee that more than a single missile will be fired.  

 

CIWS type systems have well over 85%-90% hit ratio's from single burst and that is from  what they have stated publicly.  They could be lying.  So for a 99.9% kill ratio, 2 "bursts" either mini rockets or CIWS style obtains said ratio.  DIRCM... Good freaking luck against a modern IR sensor missile. 

 

Fragmentation from 100 feet out.  True up to a point, but... How is this applicable?  Said explosive rounds explode the missile, not just divert it.  If you assume a CIWS only destroys within a couple hundred feet then...  Okey dokey.  Uh, armor?  Its why the A-10 has armor.  Expecting to be invulnerable is absurd.  Redundant systems its why they exist.  Only dumb UAV's don't have them... at the moment.  Will this work on fighter aircarft?  No.  As you might know, or inderectly know, framentation on a fighter aircraft will take it out easily as their skin is thin, their fuel tanks are wrapped around the engine and everything other tiny space and they don't auto seal like the A-10.  Auto sealing fuel tanks are part of civilian airliners though.  Fighter aircraft's first job is air superiority and sacrifices durability and "true redundancy."

 

Bulbous dome:  Its why it would be on CAS aircraft.   Don't care about high speed.  In fact high speed hurts CAS platforms. 

 

Libya: Ah yes ancient 1960's70's weapons having quadrant homing only sensors which can't even distinguish an aircraft verses flares.  As an example of how absurd your statement is, lets look at how you could easily build a near top of the line IR missile.   Anyone wanting a top of the line IR sensor just has to buy a digital camera today.  Remove the IR filter, bin the pixels for greater S/N ratio, use the face detection tracking software to change to an airplane shape in the super crude fashion along with a feedback servo control loop of the maneuvering thruster and viola near top of the line IR missile.  Anyone with a computer and rudimentary software skills can easily do the recognition software.  The C&C loop between sensor and maneuvering is absurdly easy as well.  Forget computing projected flight path, just fly a homing route.  That is how even a half assed country could get such a missile.  Thankfully, most folks in power are power hungry, greedy, selfish, lazy, short sighted, and ignorant. 

 

Why do you think everyone isn't really worried about the F-35 RADAR performance besides arm chair idiots that is?  Because from long range its low frontal signature works, but in close where its side or top signatures suck it doesn't matter as IR tracks airplanes passively with ease and there isn't a thing you can do about that signature besides flying slower/lower making yourself even more vulnerable.  Now the F-35's maneuverabilty issues I have a problem with... Different subject, different time to complain about that. 

DIRCM range verses explosive rounds and actual success rate...   Ah yes that is on the secrets list.  One gets rid of the missile the other just tries to spoof it.  Basically betting they can send IR EMF to overpower sensors S/N ratio. Need multiple systems as one can guarantee that more than a single missile will be fired.  

 Again, I'm amazed how many people on SP and other sites tell you the proven, working systems are rubbish and their idea is far superior with zero supporting evidence.

CIWS type systems have well over 85%-90% hit ratio's from single burst and that is from  what they have stated publicly.  They could be lying.  So for a 99.9% kill ratio, 2 "bursts" either mini rockets or CIWS style obtains said ratio.  DIRCM... Good freaking luck against a modern IR sensor missile. 

CIWS MAY have the kill ratios you describe (though interestingly have a look at the derivative land based system in Iraq C-RAM, which has not been nearly so successful against smaller targets ), they also tend to fire high-velocity ammo at several thousands of rounds a minute. In this case you can't do that, and you have a far greater level of relative motion between target and object, also, try stabilising and simultaneously aiming that system when you are dealing with a heavily maneuvering aircraft and closing missile. 

 

Fragmentation from 100 feet out.  True up to a point, but... How is this applicable?  Said explosive rounds explode the missile, not just divert it.  If you assume a CIWS only destroys within a couple hundred feet then...  

 

The explosive round/s will either destroy it in which case you have a shower of debris travelling at up to or above mach-2 (for next gen threats) or trigger its main warhead (laser proximity fusing), in which case you need to be a long distance away.

 

Bulbous dome:  Its why it would be on CAS aircraft.   Don't care about high speed.  In fact high speed hurts CAS platforms.  

Two bulbous domes, each with hemispherical coverage, if this system is automated for short ranged threats it has to be capable of engaging incoming irrespective of plane aspect or maneuvers, what's the diameter of those domes to accommodate this weapon, what stabilisation and tracking system do you use, think about how large this system will have to be....

Libya: Ah yes ancient 1960's70's weapons having quadrant homing only sensors which can't even distinguish an aircraft verses flares. As an example of how absurd your statement is, lets look at how you could easily build a near top of the line IR missile.   Anyone wanting a top of the line IR sensor just has to buy a digital camera today.  Remove the IR filter, bin the pixels for greater S/N ratio, use the face detection tracking software to change to an airplane shape in the super crude fashion along with a feedback servo control loop of the maneuvering thruster and viola near top of the line IR missile. 

 

Tell me exactly how you prevent your system (or any system) from being blinded by direct energy delivered direct to sensor? DIRCM systems have been exceptional in tests even against modern western IR-homing missiles, they completely overload the seeker's array which leads to an incremental loss in accuracy, multimode seekers will pose a bigger problem but then you just add laser wavelengths as necessary - given that the guidance system is independent of the beam generators that's entirely possible.  

 

Which is why DIRCM systems are being developed by most major defense contractors and fielded or in acquisition phase for most major air forces, let's count how many are currently investing in airborne CIWS..   It's full of holes, the idea and the poor bastard who relies on it.

 

R 

Isreal thinks CIR is garbage.  They have a systems with near 100% interception value.  Remember Isreal looked at purchasing CIR weapons for its airliners.  They looked and saw they were garbage.  Instead they developed their own systems which have been proving themselves every day.  They use mini rockets.  CIWS are ancient slow, heavy junk in comparison. 

 

If what you say is true about CIR weapons systems, then they would be placed on every C-17, A-10, etc etc.   They aren't.  There are many different R&D projects into CIRWS.  Basing your analysis for CIR off of 1960's garbage from a few terrorists is laughable man.  Afganistan/Iraq/Libya.  Laughable.  IRAQ-1990 was a far more useful measuring stick.