Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Audgisil

Why the second rate aircraft?

Recommended Posts

I noticed on the equipment list under air support that NATO will be flying F-15E Strike Eagles and F-16s. These are considered pretty dated and somewhat vulnerable by today's standards. As such, I would be shocked to see NATO sending them in against the Russians while F-22s and F-35s just watch from the sidelines.

I'm sure there's logic to the decision. I'm just curious what it is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One supposes F-22 would have its hands full performing fighter interceptor and deep strike missions. Using it for CAS bombing runs would be rather like WWII Germany using ME262 as a bomber instead of an interceptor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When original roster was put together, F-35A IOC was still set for 2018. This has moved up a bit, but it remains questionable as a fully operational asset for 2017. The Marines F-35B has the earliest IOC and so is probably a good candidate for a module.

As Mikey says, our handful of F-22s would be too busy to truck bombs for CAS.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Using it for CAS bombing runs would be rather like WWII Germany using ME262 as a bomber instead of an interceptor.

Subtle.

(this parenthetical was added to comply posting standards)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, and if planes are dropping JDAM (or whatever else) at altitude to avoid the low level AA it doesn't really make much of a difference what platform's dropping them. As long as there's ECM countermeasures and HARM missiles being fired to suppress ground radar they could be pushing the bombs off the back ramp of a C-130 and have the same effect. (a small exaggeration ;))

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Throws up another idea of allowing scenario designers to set an 'CAS' value to missions. Higher the CAS value the greater the chance of interceptions or distractions for aircraft doing successful bomb runs. Reflected in game by increases fly overs of aircraft over the battlefield?

So far not so much an issue for WW2 eta due to Allied air superiority in the time period covered, but for modern titles like Black Sea where both sides would theoretically have a full air war operating at the same time?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
When original roster was put together, F-35A IOC was still set for 2018. This has moved up a bit, but it remains questionable as a fully operational asset for 2017. The Marines F-35B has the earliest IOC and so is probably a good candidate for a module.

As Mikey says, our handful of F-22s would be too busy to truck bombs for CAS.

so on a real hot day they can't use the F35B, due to heat fuel constraints.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
...they could be pushing the bombs off the back ramp of a C-130 and have the same effect. (a small exaggeration ;))

But not even that unrealistic - i ve seen videos from Syria where it is common practice for Assads forces to just litterally throw bombs out of the back ramps of their MI-8 helicopters. They hover at high altitude, possibly to stay out of the range of manpads, light the fuse witha cigarette and just roll them out of the ramp. It looks so medieval.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I did, but my Spanish is appalling :(

I noticed, though, that it's substantially more than a 'little' article :)

I bet Google Translator is good enough.

23 pages on a subject as CAS is fairly little. Notice I didn't wrote anything on FO training and the lot, which is a subject as important as the platform, is not more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From the point of view of this game the aircraft almost irrelevant. The scenario designer is trying give each side a certain amount of air delivered ordinance to balance the scenario. The rest of the details are just backstory.

A full up U.S. vs Russian air-war for control of Ukraine's skies would be mind bending strategic and operational level game all its own. Unfortunately the result would depend HEAVILY on the performance of systems whose capabilities and details are classified. In some cases the existence of the systems is itself classified. So either someone has to go to jail or the game designer would just be making it up for most practical purposes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Really the only outcome of an air-war that would led to a lot of heavy mechanized ground combat is that the air forces of both sides obliterate each other. If one sides air-force wins and has a meaningful operational capability left, the other sides logistics are toast. It takes a very great deal of diesel to run a full up mechanized war. And the smallest piece of ordinance on the smallest armed drone will burn that tanker truck just fine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You guys aren't even thinking of the cyber war and electronic war that would go on before the airwar. Serious, the next Medal of Honor winner may very well be a pimply faced hacker nerd who crashed the other side's defense network. This would Segway into air war, and that would Segway into the ground war.

NATO would not commit to ground operations with out full air dominance. So it could be another battle of britan scenario, where the war is won or lost in the air....like sea lion called off because the Brits won the Battle of Britain. To truely game this aspect, Command modern air naval operations is what you want to play. To be honest, the air war is so important, I don't even see US led NATO troops even firing a shot until the air war is won or lost.

So in the the context of cm Black Sea, you could argue that NATO has won the air war and has total dominance in the air, now the ground troops go in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You guys aren't even thinking of the cyber war and electronic war that would go on before the airwar. Serious, the next Medal of Honor winner may very well be a pimply faced hacker nerd who crashed the other side's defense network. This would Segway into air war, and that would Segway into the ground war.

NATO would not commit to ground operations with out full air dominance. So it could be another battle of britan scenario, where the war is won or lost in the air....like sea lion called off because the Brits won the Battle of Britain. To truely game this aspect, Command modern air naval operations is what you want to play. To be honest, the air war is so important, I don't even see US led NATO troops even firing a shot until the air war is won or lost.

So in the the context of cm Black Sea, you could argue that NATO has won the air war and has total dominance in the air, now the ground troops go in.

If Nato has total air dominance their will not be a single fight balanced enough to justify a CM scenario. That would be huge strategic success but a lousy game. I personally feel that scenario designers should minimize air support to emphasize a scenario where both sides air forces have attrited each other to the point that almost no aircraft can be spared for CAS. They could do that to each other in four or five days under some reasonably defensible assumptions. Even for the opening phase the air-forces are going after each other first. The air war would be a lot like the current AAR, hyper violent with at least one side just dissolving. I really don't rule out something close to mutual destruction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem with an air war with Russia is USA / NATO would undoubtly win, it might take a month and we might loose 50 planes but we wipe the Russian Air Force out along with its navy. This would be such a disaster for them, that they would panic and launch tactical nukes in desperation daring us to to escalate and launch the ICBMs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A hypothetical NATO vs Russia air war over Ukraine wouldn't result in Russia's air force being wiped out because that would require deep strikes into the Russian Motherland to eliminate airfields, SAM sites, industry producing aircraft and weapons, etc. Good luck doing that without starting nuclear WWIII.

Some Russian planes would get shot down over Ukraine and then more planes would come across the border to replace them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
A hypothetical NATO vs Russia air war over Ukraine wouldn't result in Russia's air force being wiped out because that would require deep strikes into the Russian Motherland to eliminate airfields, SAM sites, industry producing aircraft and weapons, etc. Good luck doing that without starting nuclear WWIII.

Some Russian planes would get shot down over Ukraine and then more planes would come across the border to replace them.

I agree on all counts. In any event, I wouldn't be too sure that the Russian air force would be all that easy to defeat on their own turf. NATO might "win" but lose so much that it would be a Phyrric victory that would leave it a spent force for at least a while.

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The problem with an air war with Russia is USA / NATO would undoubtly win, it might take a month and we might loose 50 planes but we wipe the Russian Air Force out along with its navy. This would be such a disaster for them, that they would panic and launch tactical nukes in desperation daring us to to escalate and launch the ICBMs.

This is my favorite misconception/stereotype about my country.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This is my favorite misconception/stereotype about my country.

Russian military doctrine calls for a first-strike nuclear option when facing a superior conventional force. It's a well known and publicized fact. That is precisely why any kind of war between Russia and US over Ukraine is a fantasy that might be interesting model in a wargame; but should not be debated too seriously by adult men (or women).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Russian military doctrine calls for a first-strike nuclear option when facing a superior conventional force. It's a well known and publicized fact. That is precisely why any kind of war between Russia and US over Ukraine is a fantasy that might be interesting model in a wargame; but should not be debated too seriously by adult men (or women).

The idea of freely using nuclear weapons 'in desperation' especially against a nuclear armed power 'daring a full scale nuclear war' is quite silly. Doctrine or not - (which is a misunderstood doctrine) the scenario put forth in this game does not. Hegemony over Ukraine or the independence of Novorossiya is not worth the consequences of the use of nuclear weapons. Step foot on Russian soil, different story.

In reality, war with NATO over Ukraine is not worth the consequences much the same for NATO, But the idea that Russia will just willy nilly throw around WMD (including chem) is just silly. Especially at a nuclear armed foe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...