Military FAQ thread

[Fingolfin]

First of all thanks for you answer, scratch.

Now im thinking about the US called "layered defence" with SM-2, ESSM, RAM, and CIWS. The radar horizon line would limit the range of SM-2 intercepting a low flying missile to a range close to ESSM. Their function then in the layered defence is engaging aircraft at long distances and high altitudes rather than intercepting missiles?

 

[Awwal12]

Re: any info about 5.8mm type 88B GPMG

I have no idea how weaponry development & production orders are made in China, but it seems they don't consult their soldiers too much... 5.8 mm SAW is a dream, yeah, but not in such a weight. Here that Type 88B gives only that slight benefit that its ammo isn't heavy. And using it for a long range distance fire from a tripod... Well, let alone that obvious fact that at 800 m it already cannot penetrate a thing, even at smaller distances it will be much less effective in penetrating extensive obstacles (breastworks, wood trunks etc.). As for other shortcomings, I read that its lowest temperature of use is -25C, which is hardly enough even for the internal use in China. It's strange that they adopted it after all.

 

[Awwal12]

Question: Chinese rifle grenades

Strange but I couldn't find much info on this topic in the Internet. Well, let's make it in paragraphs...
1. I've found some technical info on Type 79 rifle grenade (mostly in Chinese) and apparently its photo. Still I have no data about its serial production or even was it adopted or not.
2. I've found just a photo of some rifle grenade called DQD 1. No data at all. Judging on its index, it has to be a newer design, but it's just my thoughts.
3. Type 81 rifles have a noticeable muzzle device for firing rifle grenades. Russian Wikipedia claims that QBZ-95 is also able to fire rifle grenades, and it's believeable after looking at its barrel. Though English Wikipedia claims that Type 63 is able to fire rifle grenades as well, despite its barrel clearly looks unappropriate at least for firing "tube" grenades (that are put on a barrel).
Hence: there should be another grenades in PLA before Type 79; apparently there should be some additional devices for firing them from Type 63. NO INFO AT ALL.
4. As is generally known, serial Soviet/Russian AKs and SKSs are unable to fire rifle grenades. Apparently Chinese designers have made some changes in Type 63 to make it possible. Don't Type 56 rifles (Chinese SKS variants) and Type 56 assault rifles (AKs respectively) have this ability as well by any chance?
5. Which types of rifle grenades ever were in PLA service, and what is the current situation in this field?
Thanks for any provided info!

 

[Scratch]

Well, yes essentially, but also AShM with a high flying attack profile. Although these kinds of missile are not that common anymore these days.
With the oncoming "Cooperative Engagement Capability" for the navy, I don't know if maybe an E-2 could illuminate targets as well. And there's the SM-6 in development wich is a SM-2 with an AMRAAM active radar seeker, wich might be mid-course guided to a target beyond the radar horizon by an off-board sensor. But that is now just speculation on my part.

 

[Awwal12]

Type 74 LMG: any info?

Greetings! Does anybody have any detailed info on this stuff?



What I know is just its basic characteristics: weight ~6.4 kg, 7.62x39mm ammo, drum magazine containing 101 cartridges. The most interesting thing to me is was it approved for service, was it produced, details about its creation, some of not-that-obvious benefits and shortcomings, etc.

Also I've found statements that it's "smaller version of SG-43 MMG", which look pretty ridiculous to me. I mean, even if Type 74 may use the same features in its mechanism, have those guys ever seen SG-43?..

 

[Awwal12]

I always wondered, despite the size of Russian submarines, why does the Typhoon class, the largest ever built, is only capable of carrying 20 SLBMs? At first I thought that this was so because the SLBMs launched are of greater size and performance, but they are equal in size and performance when compared to the Trident II. I ask this because Ohio class Submarines that we use are smaller than Typhoons but carry 24 SLBMs, which gives us a major Retaliatory strike or First strike advantage. Why is this so?

Well, Typhoon's SLBMs are sufficiently larger.
R-39: 90 ton, 16 m;
UGM-133A: 59 ton, 13,4 m.

 

[Blitzo]

Sinodefence.com lists HQ-9s slant range as 200 km max, 500m min -- does that mean HQ-9 cannot engage targets beneath 500 meters (ie: sea skimmers)? I do not know enough about how different SAMs actually work, but I believe naval SAMs, when engaging sea skimmers the SAM would fly up and then down/near vertical and then explode, rather than firing from the VLS and then directly flying horizontal to engate the target?
Or am I wrong completely?

Basically -- does the minimum slant range of a missile have any bearing on the "minimum altitude" the missile can engage targets at, considering the differing(?) trajectories in engaging different types of targets?

 

[Scratch]

Min ranges for SAMs have very often to do with technical aspects of guidance or arming.
E.g. missiles with bigger warheads arm theselves only after a certain amount of time into their flight to make sure they are a safe distance away from the launch platform before exploding.
Radio / TVM controlled missiles also need to fly themselves into the "radar basket" of the guiding asset and communications esablished before control can be established, wich requires a certain distances to be flown.
For all I know, that's the main reasons behind min ranges, but they don't really refer to min altitudes of SAMs.
I think those are more closely related to discrimination / resolution capability of a respective missiles seeker, i.e. to make out a low flying target in ground clutter, or have a LOS with the launch platform for command guidance.

 

[Spartan95]

I was wondering what is the difference between the damages produced by the warhead used in Standard Missile 2 (115kg blast fragmentation) and exocet (165kg). I guess it must be a big difference, otherwise everyone would be using SM-2 as anti-ship missiles with speeds up to mach3 and being able to carry dozens per ship.

I would appreciate very much if someone could answer this question.

I suppose you are inquiring about the effects of the warhead on the target it is designed to take out?

SM2:
- Designed for a maximum kill radius against a fast moving target that manoeuvres in 3-dimensions
- Achieves this with blast and fragmentation effect
- Designed to detonate in front of the path of its target (i.e., proximity-fused, unless it is used against a slow moving target)

Exocet:
- Designed to kill a big target on the surface of the sea (i.e., moving in 2 dimensions only)
- Achieves this with a high explosive and blast effect
- Designed to detonate inside its target for maximum damage (i.e., contact fuse with a slight delay)
- Remaining propellant also contributes to damage in the ship it hits (as shown in Falklands War)

 

[Fingolfin]

Thank you very much for your information, Spartan95. You are aright, i also asked about the effects of the two types of warhead.

Now i come with another question, this time related with aircraft. Ive been reading a lot lately about tactics, maneouvering, capabilities...etc Everywhere they give utter importance to radar detection range in BVR combat to achieve 'first shot-first kill'.

1. What difference could make a E-2C Hawkeye in a BVR combat between two fighters?
2. Would the radar range of each aircraft be unimportant since they get the information from the hawkeye?
3. Would it allow a fighter with crappy radar and long range missiles to attack before it gets attacked by a superior aircraft with no hawkeye?

Don´t know if its a problem for you guys that i ask too often, but im really interested in warships and aircraft and this is the only place i know where people can really give proper answers to the stuff i cant find in the literature.