Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

High Altitude Warfare: The Kargil Conflict & the Future

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Could it be that they are not too clear in their concepts? I find no other reason.


    "Some have learnt many Tricks of sly Evasion, Instead of Truth they use Equivocation, And eke it out with mental Reservation, Which is to good Men an Abomination."

    I don't have to attend every argument I'm invited to.

    HAKUNA MATATA

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by lemontree View Post
      Sir, the main points brought out by the thesis are basics of mountain warfare:
      Originally posted by lemontree View Post
      Strategy
      • Arty should be the choice or arm for fire support, with limited dependence on air power.
      • Maneuver and tactical surprise
      • Concentrated fire support
      Does the development of JDAMs change that view now?
      Are thermobarics in the IAF loadout opportunity? It would seem that thermobarics (esp if launched from UAV's) would go some way to countering the imprecision of freefall weapons (or early gen PGM's)
      Is the issue of manouvre one of daylight tactics - was there any night manouvre (and thus gets back to my latter question of the calibre of NVG in place)

      Originally posted by lemontree View Post
      Air power
      • Should be employed for destruction of fixed targets
      • Emergency CAS
      • Control the air
      • Keep own lines of communication open and destroy enemy lines of communication.
      How does NVG perform in hi-alt conditions?
      Was NVG used? if so what generation was it?

      wrt to comments Ray has made about bunkering, are you referring to Pakistani bunkering or Indian defensive works?

      If fast drying cement fails to work properly at hi-alt, has India looked at the stackable reinforced and collapseable bunkerage modules that the US and Australia use in Iraq? Shek might be able to comment about this, but I'm under the impression that the new collapseable "bagged berms" are pretty effective.
      Linkeden:
      http://au.linkedin.com/pub/gary-fairlie/1/28a/2a2
      http://cofda.wordpress.com/

      Comment


      • #18
        Pardon my ignorance. What is a bagged berm??

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by gf0012-aust View Post
          Does the development of JDAMs change that view now?
          The IAF does not have JDAMs yet, and GLONASS employment is still some time away for it to field local GPS (type) guided weapons.

          Are thermobarics in the IAF loadout opportunity?
          Not really- Napalm is there and was reportedly used at Kargil, if my memory serves me correct, but I dont recall any thermobaric bombs.

          It would seem that thermobarics (esp if launched from UAV's) would go some way to countering the imprecision of freefall weapons (or early gen PGM's)
          The problem remains...because your own troops are very near the enemy. The problem is that the IAF was caught off guard at Kargil, a lot of their weapons were not qualified for high-alt delivery anyways. So the issue of danger to own troops remains when you have thermobarics or anything launched without being qualified for those heights. Coming to UAVs- India didnt even have its Searchers/Herons/Nishants at that point of time. Today, its a different scene, and armed UAVs could be deployed this decade. Again, no thermobarics (air launched)-afaik.

          Is the issue of manouvre one of daylight tactics - was there any night manouvre (and thus gets back to my latter question of the calibre of NVG in place)
          LT can answer this much better than I can.

          How does NVG perform in hi-alt conditions?
          Was NVG used? if so what generation was it?
          India (at that point of time) only had Gen-II NVGs and as far as thermals went, the Mira (iirc) on the Milan launcher. Thats about it. Todays IA is equipped far better, but if I read you correctly, you were asking about 99.

          wrt to comments Ray has made about bunkering, are you referring to Pakistani bunkering or Indian defensive works?

          If fast drying cement fails to work properly at hi-alt, has India looked at the stackable reinforced and collapseable bunkerage modules that the US and Australia use in Iraq? Shek might be able to comment about this, but I'm under the impression that the new collapseable "bagged berms" are pretty effective.
          Ray/LT are the best ones to answer this. But the basic problem remains- someone has to lug this stuff around, and these things do cost money. In 1999, the Pak logistics effort was very limited, RayC has posted extensively on this in the past.
          Karmani Vyapurutham Dhanuhu

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by texasjohn View Post
            Pardon my ignorance. What is a bagged berm??
            Basically its a HESCO barrier (Concertainer). The US uses variations of it called the Emergency Safety Barrier (ESB) System and the Direct Deployment Barrier System.
            Linkeden:
            http://au.linkedin.com/pub/gary-fairlie/1/28a/2a2
            http://cofda.wordpress.com/

            Comment


            • #21
              gf,

              AT the end of the thesis, author also examines American tactics in Afghanistan, in particular Operation Anaconda in Shah-i-Kot valley (Chapter V, Pahe 65). During this operation coalition forces employed JDAMs extensively. Quoting from the thesis,
              Eastern Afghanistan and Ladakh share several similar characteristics, with one notable exception. The mountains that encircle the Shah-i-Kot valley reach 12,500 feet
              (3,800 m), some 4,200 feet (1,280 m) less than the elevation of Tiger Hill and most battles at Kargil. Despite the difference in altitude, the atmosphere at 12,500 feet (3,800 m) exhibits similar qualities as the rarified air above the LOC in Kashmir. Barometric pressure at 12,500 feet (3,800 m) is approximately two-thirds of its value at sea level. Temperatures in eastern Afghanistan in early March 2002 dropped to -10° C at night, and snow fell as U.S. forces initiated the battle. The barren and rocky landscape resembles that of Ladakh as well.

              The demand for firepower increased as ground combat intensified. Artillery did not exist in the theater of operations. Many units had flown into combat without their
              mortars. Apache pilots had performed courageously, but their aircraft had been knocked out of the fight by heavy enemy fire. A wide range of United States Air Force (USAF)
              and Navy aircraft responded, and ultimately dropped more than six million pounds of ordnance onto the Shah-i-Kot valley.205 Most of these aircraft employed the Joint Direct
              Attack Munition (JDAM).

              Despite the significant technological advantage afforded by the JDAM, the U.S. air effort encountered many of the same challenges as Indian Air Force (IAF) operations at Kargil. U.S. aircraft faced an enemy in small, mobile teams dispersed in uneven terrain. U.S. planners believed that the al Qaeda possessed a significant number of portable SAMs that could be easily hidden in terrain folds.207 Most U.S. aircraft flew at altitudes above 20,000 feet (6,100 m) to avoid the SAM threat, making target acquisition difficult. Pilots were also constrained by a small view of target areas from the cockpit, referred to as “about the size of a postage stamp,” and an angle of attack that made target acquisition difficult.

              Immediately following the battle, U.S. Army participants credited CAS with destroying most al Qaeda mortars and howitzers in the first two days of combat. However, closer inspection revealed that many al Qaeda positions survived extensive air strikes. U.S. aircraft failed to destroy the al Qaeda positions atop Objective Ginger, a mountain at 10,200 feet (3,100 m), despite ten days of continuous bombing. U.S. ground forces eventually discovered an enemy position surrounded by five JDAM craters whose occupants had survived the aerial bombardment. Most enemy forces hid in deep caves during air strikes, and reemerged after the bombing run to continue the fight. U.S. participants also identified limiting effects of terrain on aerial munitions that are similar to those observed by Indian forces at Kargil:
              While JDAMs are effective on fixed targets, on small mobile units their utility is limited.

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by kams View Post
                gf,

                AT the end of the thesis, author also examines American tactics in Afghanistan, in particular Operation Anaconda in Shah-i-Kot valley (Chapter V, Pahe 65). During this operation coalition forces employed JDAMs extensively. Quoting from the thesis,


                While JDAMs are effective on fixed targets, on small mobile units their utility is limited.

                Thanks for the response.

                I would argue though that the argument re JDAMs on mobile targets is somewhat temporal, eg they have recently been successfully tested against small mobile targets from between 20-50miles (32-80km). This has occurred in the last 18months, so it seems to show real world potential.

                The other thing I was alluding to was thermobaric JDAMs. Whereas an "ordinary" JDAM is more likely to be a contact and/or prescriptive close proximity weapon, a thermobaric is a multi-dimensional area denial weapon - esp if air burst. That then begs the issue of thermobaric round mortars.

                Perhaps they will be in the next iteration??

                WRT to Anaconda, I know that a few of the Aust SAS attached to US forces considered that they "owned the night" and certainly had a better success rate - so again it would appear that in contemp terms, a new opportunity for the employment of thermobaric rounds exists.
                Last edited by gf0012-aust; 31 Dec 06,, 07:16.
                Linkeden:
                http://au.linkedin.com/pub/gary-fairlie/1/28a/2a2
                http://cofda.wordpress.com/

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by gf0012-aust View Post
                  Does the development of JDAMs change that view now?
                  Are thermobarics in the IAF loadout opportunity? It would seem that thermobarics (esp if launched from UAV's) would go some way to countering the imprecision of freefall weapons (or early gen PGM's)
                  JDAMs have a CEP of 9 meters or more. These are devastating in plains, but in mountains a CEP of 10 mtrs makes the weapon useless if it misses its target on defences located on narrow spurs or crest line of ridges. However, the JDAM is a suitable weapon to hit logistic bases, while it not be suitable to hit section defended localities on mountains, for them a baty of 120mm mortars are cheaper and more effective.

                  Is the issue of manouvre one of daylight tactics - was there any night manouvre (and thus gets back to my latter question of the calibre of NVG in place)
                  Maneuver was/ is mainly by night, any day movement is easily detected in mountains.

                  The passive NVGs are not effective in the absence of ambient light, although they have more range than other types. The infrared NVGs are better, but have smaller ranges, and thremals are too heavy.

                  I have seen pitch black nights with fog when you can't see your own hand infront of your eyes - no NVG works in such conditions except thermals.
                  How does NVG perform in hi-alt conditions?
                  The btys get used up very fast due to the cold.

                  Cheers!...on the rocks!!

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by lemontree View Post
                    JDAMs have a CEP of 9 meters or more. These are devastating in plains, but in mountains a CEP of 10 mtrs makes the weapon useless if it misses its target on defences located on narrow spurs or crest line of ridges. However, the JDAM is a suitable weapon to hit logistic bases, while it not be suitable to hit section defended localities on mountains, for them a baty of 120mm mortars are cheaper and more effective.
                    I'm more than curious then as to the validity of thermobaric rounds for mortars and howitzers. they would seem to be able to provide an enhancement - especially on escarpments where there is a greater chance of reflection.
                    Linkeden:
                    http://au.linkedin.com/pub/gary-fairlie/1/28a/2a2
                    http://cofda.wordpress.com/

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Thermobaric rounds are best used against enclosures (buildings, caves, etc). The thermobaric round uses 2 destructive/kill mechanisms; 1. Blast over-pressure: While this pressure is not as great as that produced by high explosive, it is longer in duration. 2. Incendiary effect.

                      To be effective the thermobaric explosion needs to be confined, for a short period of time, to allow the over-pressure time to propagate, and flammable materials to ignite. Thermobaric rounds produce very little fragments, compared to high explosive rounds. In the open, the blast casualty producing radius of thermobaric rounds is considerably less than that of high explosive.

                      For mortars & howitzers it would be better that Fragmentation projectiles were developed & used. Air-Burst fragmentation projectiles are vicious/efficient people killers.

                      R/S Jake

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        gf,

                        Couple of days back there was a programme on Military channel where Thermobaric Bombs were discussed. According to the the person in charge of development at 'Indian Head' (who happens to be a Charming Lady of Vietmnamese origin), development of these weapons were accelerated during Afghanistan War and 6 units were rushed to field.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by kams View Post
                          gf,

                          Couple of days back there was a programme on Military channel where Thermobaric Bombs were discussed. According to the the person in charge of development at 'Indian Head' (who happens to be a Charming Lady of Vietmnamese origin), development of these weapons were accelerated during Afghanistan War and 6 units were rushed to field.

                          thanks mate. it will be interesting to see what post technology assessments are released in the future re their use.
                          Linkeden:
                          http://au.linkedin.com/pub/gary-fairlie/1/28a/2a2
                          http://cofda.wordpress.com/

                          Comment

                          Working...
                          X