The Strategypage is a comprehensive summary of military news and affairs.
 News As History - November 24, 2009




New Strategy - Wargames at Discount Prices
1.Modern Air Power: War Over the Middle East
2.Commander: Napoleon at War
3.Close Combat: Watch am Rhein
4.Gallic Wars
5.Fast Action Battle: The Bulge

100+ Computer and Board games all with free shipping.
 
 
 
Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use
How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Australia Discussion Board
Sign In   Return to Topic Page
Subject: Latest Kopp Crap
Aussiegunneragain    10/28/2009 6:39:26 AM
I was browsing the stands at the news agency the other day and saw the latest editon of "Defence Today". I would never buy that rubbish but I speed read pretty well and I like to amuse myself by ready Carlo Kopp's articles without putting any money into his pocket. In this he had one about the "shoot and scoot" SAM threat, which basically went like this:

1. Advanced mobile Russian SAM's have radars that are hard to detect and neutralise using current ESM/ECM equipment on the likes of the EF-18F.

2. The sites will be protected by 30mm autocannon and short range SAM's that can shoot down a HARM missile in flight (!!!), neutralising Western SEAD capabilities.

3. The F-35 is effectively "neutered" against this thread (he didn't say why).

4. The only modern aircraft types that can survive are the F-22 and the B-2.

Does this idiot every give up?
 
Quote    Reply

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title     Sort in Reverse Order Posted
jackjack       10/28/2009 8:49:03 AM
are you sure of your speed reading skills ?
wouldnt it be, the F-22, B-2 and the uberpig
 
Quote    Reply

VelocityVector       10/29/2009 1:03:25 AM

I'll concur with Kopp on #2 up until "neutralizing."  Pantsir system appears to be a modern, capable near-target defense against incoming munitions even in busy ECM.  It shouldn't snare the launch a/c but can act as forward eyes and ears for other assets that can grab the ac/ depending on what it is and how its pilot operates.  I'll concur with Aussiegunner on ##1, 3-4 and "crap."  Somebody though keeps buying the rag.

v^2
 
Quote    Reply

gf0012-aust       10/29/2009 2:25:55 AM
Does this idiot every give up?
yep, he was at last years MilCiS but failed to attend and give his briefing - much to the disappointment of a number of real Radar and EWarfare systems engineers who wanted to publicly flagellate him in public.

alas he chickened out.

hopefully he will be at this years event in 2 weeks time so that I can at least get additional jollies.
 
Quote    Reply

Aussiegunneragain       10/29/2009 3:10:16 AM

I'll concur with Kopp on #2 up until "neutralizing."  Pantsir system appears to be a modern, capable near-target defense against incoming munitions even in busy ECM.  It shouldn't snare the launch a/c but can act as forward eyes and ears for other assets that can grab the ac/ depending on what it is and how its pilot operates.  I'll concur with Aussiegunner on ##1, 3-4 and "crap."  Somebody though keeps buying the rag.


v^2



Having just read about the Pantsyr I agree that it is an impressive system on paper but I'm not sure that they have a 10 inch, Mach 2 missile in mind when they talk about hitting incoming munitions. If a HARM shooter was to use a low-level approach behind terrain to within 3 or 4 km of the radiation source that it wants to hit and then pop up to fire, the transit time for the missile would be about 10 seconds. The Pansyr apparently has a 5 or 6 second reaction time but against one or more small, probably crossing target(s) hitting them both is going to be a big ask. Furthermore if it was a link 16 networked aircraft the HARM shooter would undoubtedly be able to fire off data from another aircraft loitering out of range, reducing the "pop up" time to the amount needed to press the button.
link />
 
Quote    Reply

gf0012-aust    correction   10/29/2009 3:25:31 AM

yep, he was at last years MilCiS but failed to attend and give his briefing 
should have been:

yep, he was scheduled for a presentation at last years MilCIS but failed to attend and give his briefing 
 
Quote    Reply

Aussiegunneragain       10/29/2009 3:44:13 AM

Does this idiot every give up?

yep, he was at last years MilCiS but failed to attend and give his briefing - much to the disappointment of a number of real Radar and EWarfare systems engineers who wanted to publicly flagellate him in public.



alas he chickened out.




hopefully he will be at this years event in 2 weeks time so that I can at least get additional jollies.





What I don't get is why he gets invited to these things. I know he runs a course on EW but he has never actually served in the military and nor as far as I know in the Department of Defense. All of his knowledge has to be entirely theoretical based on publically available information, which doesn't sound that credible to me.
 
Quote    Reply

gf0012-aust       10/29/2009 4:03:25 AM
What I don't get is why he gets invited to these things. I know he runs a course on EW but he has never actually served in the military and nor as far as I know in the Department of Defense. All of his knowledge has to be entirely theoretical based on publically available information, which doesn't sound that credible to me.
NFI.  all I know is that in the operational community he is regarded with a degree of contempt and quizzical bemusement.  quite funny when you consider that he doesn't get access to anything except whats in the public domain so is not in a position to talk about anything operational with the remotest degree of authority - let alone his blind belief in his own technical superiority.

The EW guys just fall over at what he trots out with as "fact".

go figure. :)
 
Quote    Reply

Volkodav       10/29/2009 4:12:53 AM
What I don't get is why he gets invited to these things. I know he runs a course on EW but he has never actually served in the military and nor as far as I know in the Department of Defense. All of his knowledge has to be entirely theoretical based on publically available information, which doesn't sound that credible to me.
 
Unfortunately his research skills put him ahead of a few defence "professionals" I have come across. A small but still disturbing minority, some quite senior, are absolutely clueless about anything slightly outside their area of expertease, i.e. they don't even know the public domain stuff. Some are even oblivious to things that have a direct impact on their deliverables.
 
Quote    Reply

gf0012-aust       10/29/2009 4:16:48 AM
A small but still disturbing minority, some quite senior, are absolutely clueless about anything slightly outside their area of expertease, i.e. they don't even know the public domain stuff. Some are even oblivious to things that have a direct impact on their deliverables.

ah, but thats why you always deal with operators.  :)  theory is always different from operations
 
Quote    Reply

Volkodav       10/29/2009 7:19:09 AM


A small but still disturbing minority, some quite senior, are absolutely clueless about anything slightly outside their area of expertise, i.e. they don't even know the public domain stuff. Some are even oblivious to things that have a direct impact on their deliverables.




ah, but thats why you always deal with operators.  :)  theory is always different from operations



Actually got some ex operators in the same team as me and we are recruiting more.  The cousins are very good too, I find them very approachable and helpful, not to mention extremely knowledgeable. 
 
Its the home grown cabbages, more often than not armed with MBA's (or "More Bugger All" to quote an old boss), that give me grief.  They will expend more time and effort to avoid reviewing a task than it would have taken to complete it and the joy of copping smug, condescending comments from someone who we have serious doubts knows how to tie his shoes laces just puts icing on the cake.  I did enjoy the look of terror in his eyes when I finally got him to understand that the task wasn't just something I invented to make myself feel important, but was something the customer had contracted us deliver, that he had not been doing and may not be able to recover.
 
I just can't pick what Kopp is, an amature who mistakenly believes most decission makers are cabbages, or a cabbage himself?
 
Quote    Reply

gf0012-aust       10/29/2009 7:48:08 AM
I just can't pick what Kopp is, an amature who mistakenly believes most decission makers are cabbages, or a cabbage himself?

he's a conceited cabbage who has got zero real life experience in what he claims primacy on.  he had the temerity once to say to a def journo that he was the most knowledgeable person in Oz in radar and EW systems.  needless to say the geeks couldn't stop laughing at that one. (and all this from a muppet who hasn't even got restricted clearances so doesn't get to see even basic material.  all his knowledge is open source and whatever unclass material is available.)  hence when he talks about things like RCS values and that he's got some dicky little open source software to crunch the numbers etc -- then you just know that he's out to lunch and that there is a kangaroo loose in the top paddock.

he'd wet his pants if he ever saw the material that the BACC/NACC people have.

he's too conceited to realise that he's become a laughing stock.  that little cabal that runs APA is a sad sad little clutch of sock puppets. :)
 
Quote    Reply

Aussiegunneragain       10/29/2009 7:54:31 AM




I'll concur with Kopp on #2 up until "neutralizing."  Pantsir system appears to be a modern, capable near-target defense against incoming munitions even in busy ECM.  It shouldn't snare the launch a/c but can act as forward eyes and ears for other assets that can grab the ac/ depending on what it is and how its pilot operates.  I'll concur with Aussiegunner on ##1, 3-4 and "crap."  Somebody though keeps buying the rag.




v^2







Having just read about the Pantsyr I agree that it is an impressive system on paper but I'm not sure that they have a 10 inch, Mach 2 missile in mind when they talk about hitting incoming munitions. If a HARM shooter was to use a low-level approach behind terrain to within 3 or 4 km of the radiation source that it wants to hit and then pop up to fire, the transit time for the missile would be about 10 seconds. The Pansyr apparently has a 5 or 6 second reaction time but against one or more small, probably crossing target(s) hitting them both is going to be a big ask. Furthermore if it was a link 16 networked aircraft the HARM shooter would undoubtedly be able to fire off data from another aircraft loitering out of range, reducing the "pop up" time to the amount needed to press the button.


link />


Actually on reflection forget the above. It supposes that the primary SAM site is using a search radar when shoot and scoot SAM operations are probably more likely to use listening posts to estimate where the package is before going straight to FCR to engage. In this context I can see how Pantsyr defended sites would be a real problem for SEAD forces escorting strike package.
What does this mean for the use of non-stealthy aircraft in strike aircraft in the future? If we can't degrade the enemy SAM force with hard kills at the beginning of the war the ways around it that I can think of are:
 
1. Far greater use of offensive EW aircraft to escort strike packages. That makes Australia as getting fully equipped Growlers potentially quite important. Expensive.
2. Attempting to use offensive EW aircraft as decoy's, to get the SAMs to turn on their radars, jam them in self defence and then hit them HARM or have a second low level aircraft do it. Risky.
3. Greater use of stealthy terrain following stand-off weapons like JASSM, beyond the initial strikes. Expensive.
4. Flushing out the SAM's for low flying SEAD forces with some sort of noisy decoy such as target drones. Potentially expensive.
5. Greater use of stand-off glide bombs such as JSOW that don't make any noise in flight. Only useful for targets that aren't deeper than the glide bomb's range.
 
It doesn't look like an insurmountable problem but it would certainly have its challenges.
 
Quote    Reply

Volkodav       10/29/2009 9:29:42 AM
What would be more challenging is passive radar networks cueing dispersed active homing missiles.  No way to find the launchers before they launch and no way to find the receivers or control hubs at all.  The emitters could be anything in the spectrum meaning an attacker would have to target every radio / television tower in the area, even neutral ones, technically the passive radar could even use the attackers own emissions.
 
PMSL, I barely understand what I have just written, but it sounded good when I read it.
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

Aussiegunneragain       10/30/2009 7:26:08 AM

What would be more challenging is passive radar networks cueing dispersed active homing missiles.  No way to find the launchers before they launch and no way to find the receivers or control hubs at all.  The emitters could be anything in the spectrum meaning an attacker would have to target every radio / television tower in the area, even neutral ones, technically the passive radar could even use the attackers own emissions.

 PMSL, I barely understand what I have just written, but it sounded good when I read it. 


Don't worry about that, Kopp has made a career out of having NFI about what he is talking about so why should we burdent ourselves with knowledge before expressing our views?

 
 
Quote    Reply



StrategyWorld.com© 1998 - 2009StrategyWorld.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