Jump to content
H1nd

Strategic and tactical realities in CMBS

Recommended Posts

I have litle question about tactics - how US plan to fight with the russian choppers and CAS planes flyng on low altitude?

 

there is a controversy about that, according to some, NATO would quickly gain air superiority, so it would not be a factor. According to others, both sides would trade air superiority so each side could each get in limited air strikes.

 

the nice thing about CMBS is that you can test out both theories since both sides have air assets and AA/SAM assets to shoot them down. :)

Edited by Sgt Joch

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The US only has Stingers for AA

 

That is MANPAD with a very limited range.

NATO would quickly gain air superiority

 

Why? Russian army have more SAMs when anyone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Why? Russian army have more SAMs when anyone.

 

first phase of any air superiority campaign is taking out the enemy air defences. Many experts feel Russian air defences and air forces could be taken out in a few weeks.

 

Again, this is not a view held by everyone, some feel the Russians would be tougher than the Syrians (1982), Iraqis (1991), Serbs (1999) or Libyans (2011).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Many experts feel Russian air defences and air forces could be taken out in a few weeks.

 

Question is how many NATO planes will remain functional after this?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Question is how many NATO planes will remain functional after this?

 again, it depends how its done. If you look at the 2011 Libyan operation, Libyan air defences were taken out using only ship launched Tomahawk cruise missiles and stealth B2 bombers.

 

 

  • Day 1: 19 March 2011

21h: The first main strike involved the launch of 112 Tomahawk cruise missiles from U.S. and UK ships against shoreline air defenses of the Gaddafi regime.[14][65][66][67] The U.S. Department of Defense reports that the dismantling of Libya's ability to hinder the enforcement of the UN no-fly zone was only the first of multiple stages in the operation.[68] USMC Harriers participated in an air strike against a large military convoy outside Benghazi.[56]

  • Day 2: 20 March 2011

Sustained anti-aircraft fire erupted in Tripoli at around 2:33 am Libyan time.[69] Three B-2 Spirit bombers targeted 45 hardened aircraft shelters at a Libyan airfield near Sirte.[56] At the same time, U.S. Air Force fighter jets conducted missions searching for Libyan ground forces to attack. U.S. Navy EA-18G Growlers jammed Libyan radar and communications.[70][71] No U.S. aircraft were lost during the missions.[72] The warplanes included Marine Corps AV-8B Harrier IIs (attacking pro-Gaddafi's ground forces),[73] Air Force B-2 Spirit stealth bombers, and F-15E Strike Eagle and F-16C Fighting Falcon fighter jets.[74]Admiral Mike Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, states that there would be continuous allied air cover over Benghazi, and that the no-fly zone "is effectively in place".[75] An EC-130J was recorded warning Libyan shipping "If you attempt to leave port, you will be attacked and destroyed immediately" in Arabic, French and English.[76] Four Royal Danish Air Force F-16 flew their first mission over Libya[77][78]

  • Day 3: 21 March 2011

All fixed SA-2 Guideline, SA-3 Goa and SA-5 Gammon sites were taken out. Only SA-6 Gainful, hand held SA-7 Grail and SA-8 Gecko mobile SAMs are still a possible threat to aircraft.[79] In the early hours of the day a building from Moammar Gadhafi's compound in Tripoli was completely destroyed by a cruise missile.[80] Twelve more cruise missiles were fired at command and air defense sites.[81]

 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Odyssey_Dawn#Deployed_forces

 

Against the Russians, you would probably expect more B2/F35/F22, so it is really a question of how effective Russian air defences would be against stealth aircraft.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stealth B2 bombers

That is realy questional statement))

As for other, Libyan AA were something like mid 70s USSR. Plus they dont have any strategic AA assets like S-300 and S-400.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

first phase of any air superiority campaign is taking out the enemy air defences. Many experts feel Russian air defences and air forces could be taken out in a few weeks.

 

Again, this is not a view held by everyone, some feel the Russians would be tougher than the Syrians (1982), Iraqis (1991), Serbs (1999) or Libyans (2011).

 

The thing is, Russia has the most sophisticated SAM network in the world and are pretty competent at using it. Couple that with a relatively competent air force (albeit one that is still recovering from more than a decade worth of underfunding, under-training and being under-equipped) and you have a pretty daunting picture.

 

It is not invulnerable of course but the point is that those things combined create a pretty complex problem for the attackers to overcome. Unless the attackers have some completely unheard of Ace up their sleeve (Super powerful EW suit? New generation of super Stealth?  or maybe space based weapons?) they have to develop their own complex SEAD/DEAD solution to overcome the problem. Now the US are certainly the experts in this field. Still, overcoming a SAM network of that scale would require lots of time, effort, material and impeccable planning. All of that rises the chances of mistakes and worse form a strategic perspective is that to take out all the SAMs that cover Ukraine you may well have to strike deep into Russia itself, thus risk escalating the conflict.

 

Yes, I followed the Libyan campaign. One thing I can tell you right off the bat. That impressive tomahawk strike in the beginning will serve as nothing more than a distraction/diversion  in this scenario. Tomahawks are relatively outdated in the modern sense. They are pretty slow and very easy to take out by any relatively modern SAM or even aircraft. You can easily test that out yourself if you own Command Modern Air / Naval Operations.

 

I am fine with the idea that the airspace would be contested enough where both side have chances to deliver airstrikes (especially right in the beginning of the conflict)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

impressive tomahawk strike

 

Tomahawks are too slow and can be intercepted with ease even with Osa SAM.

 

But turning back to my question - how NATO side will counter low altitude CAS? US dont have any AA for that, manpads are actualy the last chance weapon, not the main one. UA AA are old and not realy numerus.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In addition to the almost entirely classified specifics of a vast array of radars, jammers, and miscellaneous electronic warfare platforms, there is the even bigger question of which side has been hacked worse.  There are entirely plausible scenarios foe either or both sides to have been badly compromised  Russia was not exactly a tight ship for a good ten or fifteen years, and the U.S, defense industries background checks and cybersecurity are not exactly perfect.  It is entirely possible that BOTH sides have been hacked rather severely.  This can be speculated on endlessly, but for CMBS purposes just assume whatever makes your scenario/campaign work. 

 

And be happy its not your job to re-QA a few million lines of code in very great hurry.

Edited by dan/california

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tomahawks are too slow and can be intercepted with ease even with Osa SAM.

 

But turning back to my question - how NATO side will counter low altitude CAS? US dont have any AA for that, manpads are actualy the last chance weapon, not the main one. UA AA are old and not realy numerus.

 

You aren't going to eliminate all of the Tomahawks in a well coordinated strike, I don't care how many SAM's you have, its silly to dismiss things just like that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Donetsk airport is obviously a contested place, but has anyone actually looked at videos from the place? 

To me it seems the separatists are actually in control of the main areas, not the ukrainan army.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You aren't going to eliminate all of the Tomahawks in a well coordinated strike

 

So if will be the MoD of US you will send all USN to the black sea? Just to berry them there due to backfire raid?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

But turning back to my question - how NATO side will counter low altitude CAS? US dont have any AA for that, manpads are actualy the last chance weapon, not the main one. UA AA are old and not realy numerus.

 

Not even bravest Hero Of Soviet Union SU-25 pilot will keep trucking with a missile inbound.  Even if it's a total miss he's going to go evasive, drop weapons, and likely abort.  You get the low BVR hit to kill ratio because of the high evasive nature of fixed wing aviation, but it's not highly evasive loaded for bear with weapons.  Also the ability of Russian aviation to influence the US CAP is pretty limited assuming PATRIOT coverage.  Also given the state of US sensor systems it's pretty unlikely significant CAS will just sneak on in without some significant intercept possibility.  

 

Beyond that the point of tomahawk strikes isn't so much the destruction of the missile site itself beyond dealing with idiots with SA-3s and only the finest in untrained personnel.  However it does present the dilemma of unmasking and exposing SAM sights to higher capability SEAD/DEAD systems, or letting the missiles truck on and destroy their targets.  Also there's a practical limit to how many missiles one SAM site can engage and destroy in a set window.  There is not a practical limit to how many missiles can mass on the SAM site though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To me it seems the separatists are actually in control of the main areas, not the ukrainan army.

 

In past few days they manneged to capture some buldings. And yes biggest part of AP is now under militants control.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh this troll came back again.

 

Also the ability of Russian aviation to influence the US CAP is pretty limited assuming PATRIOT coverage.

 

Russian air force have SEAD gear too. They dont have the real experince in that, but still US cant just throw all they Patriots into the Ukraine and even then they will be needed some time to make them work.

Also some military experts, with include of Israel ones, think what Patriots are not that great as Bush once said about them.

Edited by Weer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am not speaking on any particular scenario, just in general.

 

But now we are trying to speak about limited war in UA.

or chose not to address me at all

 

Sure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tomahawks are too slow and can be intercepted with ease even with Osa SAM.

 

But turning back to my question - how NATO side will counter low altitude CAS? US dont have any AA for that, manpads are actualy the last chance weapon, not the main one. UA AA are old and not realy numerus.

 

Tomahawks fly low and can surprise a SAM by being under it's radar horizon depending on terrain. In reality the though the AGM-88E will probably be the primary SEAD weapon in a CMBS type scenario, the SDB II would also be effective if sufficient numbers are deployed in time. 

 

Red air would be countered by DCA efforts mostly, MANPADS work as well since Russia doesn't have as many PGMs as the US. 

Edited by nsKb

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...