Apophenia's Offerings

[upnorth]

I guess the big question here is: Are slow-flying ECM platforms like the Guardrail viable in contested airspace?

If not, the logical follow-on question would be: Are bizjet-based ECM platforms any more viable in contested airspace?

A fair point, that.

As I think about the current situation of Ukrainian air space, those sorts of assets would need to be applied quite clandestinely at the moment.

Say a willing NATO nation that had a border with Ukraine allowed the aircraft to be based on their territory and operated over their airspace so the aircraft systems could reach into Ukrainian airspace from outside.

However, that opens an entirley bigger can of political worms that I think NATO might not go for...

[GTX_Admin]

If one used them back behind the front lines in a careful manner then yes.  If you try to do so in range of enemy air defences then definitely not.  Hence why UAVs have a greater role...and even they are being shot down in large numbers.

[apophenia]

If one used them back behind the front lines in a careful manner then yes.  If you try to do so in range of enemy air defences then definitely not.  Hence why UAVs have a greater role...and even they are being shot down in large numbers.

Part of my Falcon 20 for Ukraine concept was to get ECM out over the Black Sea. Sounds like that is really a job for (attritable) UAVs.

[apophenia]

Goofing around with the Freedom Fighter ...

Probably one of the least attractive fighter modifications ever was Northrop Grumman's 2003 F-5E SSBD (Shaped Sonic Boom Demonstration) conversion. [1] But it got me wondering about a CF-5 mod that would solve the Tinker-Toy's designed-in fuel crisis while also providing space in the nose for a radar antenna worthy of a CF-18 FLIT.

The idea is that a whiffily-backdated version of that ungainly, drooped snout would house a usefully-sized radar antenna - I'm thinking Westinghouse AN/APG-68 rather than the chunkier Hughes AN/APG-65 of the CF-18 - while the underbelly fairing behind the nose wheel bay acts as a conformal fuel tank. In this scheme, all single-seat CF-5s (CF116As) would be rebuilt with 2-seat cockpits à la the CF116D in order to best act as lead-in trainers for the CF-18As. So, permanent LAU-7/A launchers mounted for AIM-9Ms or, later, ACMI pods ... no more wingtip tanks needed.

Illustrated is Bristol Aerospace's demonstrator based on CF116D 116834. This airframe would later be destroyed as a part of the Government of Canada's second out-of-court settlement with the Northrop Corporation.

_________________________________________________

[1] The SSBD conversion was part of DARPA's Quiet Supersonic Platform (QSP) programme aimed at reducing the intensity of sonic booms.

[Gingie]

Profile reminds a little bit of a T-2 Buckeye

[apophenia]

Close-In Demining for the Ukrainian Counter-Offensive

The question came up elsewhere about what to do with available but turretless Leopard 1 hulls. My answer was a Leopard 1A5 hull fitted with the flail and other mine-clearing gear from the Bundeswehr's M48-based MiRPz Keiler. The difficulty with that concept is the time that it would take to re-tailor that Keiler and produce it for a Minenräumpanzer conversion for the Leopard 1 hull.

A simpler - and quicker to implement - scheme would be converting Leopard 1 hulls into assault breacher vehicles kitted out to launch Mine Clearing Line Charges (MICLICs). The mounting should be of 'universal' NATO type - equally able to launch British Pythons (as shown) or US Linear Demolition Charge Systems (LDCS).

I've called this conversion the Leo-Piton since the British Python system has been mounted. If the US system was installed instead, it would become the Leo-LSZZ (Liniyna systema zaryadu dlya znesennya).

The tactical advantages of such conversions would be two-fold. First, despite being lightly armoured for a tank, the Leopard 1 hull is well-protected compared to most demining line charge launch vehicles. Second, is the high reverse speed of the Leopard 1A5. In other words, the Leo-Piton will be able to launch its charges and then, using its two reverse gears, back away at 26-to-28 km/h without exposing its more lightly-armoured sides or rear to hostile fire.

I've cheated a bit on the original question because my conversion actually starts off fitted with a turret - albeit a non-standard one. Unlike other Leopard 1A5s, the Danish Leopard 1A5 DK model retained the old welded turret. For my Leo-Piton conversion, the ex-Danish Leo turret has been heavily modified. With the mantlet removed, the front of the turret has been given an extreme slope. Aft of its forward-moved crew positions, the turret has been 'bobbed' to create space for Python or LDCS containers and their launch rockets.

Anybody have any thoughts of the viability of such a line-charge launcher conversion in the Real World?

[Old Wombat]

Like most armour, if supported by infantry &. in this case, other AFV's (including gun tanks) it should have a fairly good chance of being successfully deployed

[GTX_Admin]

Another options for turret less Leo 1s would be to install a ATGM launcher in its place - perhaps even something like the ground launched Hellfires see here:



or even here:

[apophenia]

Thanks folks.

Next up for turretless Leopard 1s is the MiRPz Keiler 2 - a mine-clearing flail conversion. As the name suggests, this is Rheinmetall's earlier Minenräumpanzer gear installed on a Leopard 1A5 hull.

More on this later ... when it forms the basis of an Engineering Dept. discussion.

[edit] Now up: https://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=10845.0

[GTX_Admin]

 

[apophenia]

Another from the Engineering Dept. discussion Mineclearing Flail Tanks for Ukraine:
-- https://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=10845.0

This time, another hypothetical Leopard 1 conversion with an Aardvark RACE A-inspired hydraulically-driven mine flail.

-- https://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=10845.msg211578#msg211578