Strategic and tactical realities in CMBS

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

 

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.

 

PATRIOT may not be as fast to deploy from a march to shooting as some Russian systems, but its air transportable and operational in a matter of minutes depending on the nature of the site (so it could take "days" if you were talking about establishing it with dug in locations and the whatnot, but if it was just driving into a field and establishing the ability to engage targets it doesn't take that long).

 

The Bush era PATRIOT is long since gone and just as relevant to this discussion as 80's vintage SA-6s and somesuch.  The PAC-3 models have a demonstrated ability to shoot down TBMs with a high degree of success.  At the least it is not something to sneeze at.  This paired with the sort of air superiority and battle management stuff the USAF brings to the field makes it doubtful that much CAS would get to the Russian forces on the ground.

 

On the other hand it's reasonable to assume the air space would be exceedingly hostile over Russian lines.  What is more reasonable in terms of both scenario and theory crafting is "air parity" in which neither party is really in control of the sky, while "air superiority" only for small windows (which is to say most of the time the air is contested, but if the USAF puts everything it has in the air it can control the airspace for a period of time, and potentially the Russians might be able to do the same).

 

Also in terms of building scenarios it keeps from having to justify why the player has one air strike instead of the Iraq/Afghanistan dynamic where it's twenty planes stacked up to bomb a mud hut or something.  

[Codename Duchess]

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?

Tomahawk can be launched from outside the Black Sea by a healthy margin, and the missiles would fly low and over NATO countries. I'm not saying a backfire raid wouldn't be scary or effective, but it would need to fly over NATO countries to reach any surface ships. Nevermind our more than capable submarine fleet which is also equipped with Tomahawks.

We would be talking hundreds of missiles here. Yes Russian systems are quite capable and would detect and destroy many of them. But strike plans account for this, and now you've exposed the launchers and depleted their magazines, leaving them very vulnerable to SEAD/DEAD from aircraft. As a USN pilot I have a lot of respect for Russian SAMs (really all your missiles, you guys do an excellent job) but the economy of war means you can only shoot so many.

[Battlefront.com]

I understand that but i saw this dude on some other resourses and there he was to much russophobic.

I don't care what you, or anybody else, does or does not do on other forums. Posters are only judged by their behavior here. Of the two of you, I see your behavior as causing me more concern than pretty much anybody else in this thread. If someone makes a personal attack on you, I will deal with it. And since none was made on you, but you instead made one without provocation, it is you who needs (another) warning. Please do not test my patience.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

We had a long discussion about Russia vs. NATO (and allied) air power while developing the story for Black Sea. This included many people from different national militaries. There are three general possibilities:

1. Russian air superiority - Russia has routine access to the battle space, NATO does not

2. Air parity - both sides have about equal access to the battle space. This ranges from both having some access to neither having any

3. NATO air superiority - NATO has routine access to the battle space, Russia does not

The consensus is that there is 0.00000% chance that Russia would gain air superiority. Not on day one of the battle, not on day 10000. It just isn't plausible.

Air parity is a real possibility, at least for a while. Attrition would favor NATO over time. IIRC most of our guys felt that there would be a short and bloody period of a week or two where both sides would lose significant assets. Both sides would be almost entirely focused on the air war and therefore, on the ground, there would be greatly reduced risk of being attacked by aircraft.

The consensus is that NATO has a good chance of taking out both Russian air cover and air defenses to the extent necessary to have control of the airspace above the battlefield outside the range of Russian systems parked on Russian territory. The question is timeframe. If the war only lasts 2 weeks before a cease fire, it might not achieve air superiority that quickly.

In conclusion, we feel that the longer the war on the ground the greater the chance of NATO air superiority. The shorter the duration, the greater the chance that it would be air parity with both sides having some degree of air to ground capability.

The discussion we had involved military professionals with at least some knowledge of the full array of systems fielded by both sides. They could be wrong, but let us all hope that we do not have to find out.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

Latest I've read about the airport battle is there are still some pockets of separatist forces, but Ukraine is firmly in control of the airport (again). Evidence of this is the resumption of large scale artillery strikes by separatist artillery. If their guys were in control, I think even the separatists wouldn't do such a thing.

This was the largest battle in a very long time. Definitely the separatists came close to taking it this time. Ukraine had to launch several counter attacks, including using tanks, to stabilize and reverse the situation. From what I see it could have easily resulted in Ukraine finally losing control. Though that does not seem to be the way it went.

A reminder that this is not the first time that separatists have claimed they control the airport. This is not the first time they have managed to get into the new terminal. The previous separatist claims of victory were obviously wrong, and the evidence is that they are once again making premature claims.

Steve

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

 

 

The consensus is that there is 0.00000% chance that Russia would gain air superiority. Not on day one of the battle, not on day 10000. It just isn't plausible.

 

I think I differ in that they might gain air superiority for a short window if they surged assets, but would be unable to maintain it, and the damage done to the Russian military would be yielding air superiority to NATO if not for the duration of hostilities, at least for an uncomfortable few days while the surged assets regenerate and assets are brought in to make good losses and expended equipment.

 

Of course I'm not an air guy by training, but it does seem within reason.  

[Sergius]

I'm curious: if NATO really got involved in a war with Russia, wouldn't opportunistic China jump in to steal some Siberia from Russia while it's busy?

[Nerdwing]

I understand that but i saw this dude on some other resourses and there he was to much russophobic.

 

Weer, you literally sit in a 1000+ page thread on another forum with fellow "concerned Russians" and bum-rush links posted in that thread with new accounts to poorly argue points.  This isnt even a glass-houses scenario, I'm at a loss to draw a more apt comparison.  

 

Literally.  This isnt a figurative comment, you do exactly as I described.  

 

BTR is an amazing and amiable resource of knowledge, and totally willing to discuss points.  Ikalugin is every bit as friendly, and knowledgeable in the extreme.  Your posts, if anyone's, are whats steering discourse in the thread towards an unproductive end.  

 

 

I'm curious: if NATO really got involved in a war with Russia, wouldn't opportunistic China jump in to steal some Siberia from Russia while it's busy?

 

 

Hell, some argue they already have! 

Edited January 16, 2015 by Nerdwing

[ikalugin]

On the air war - this all depends on scenario. Ie what kind of presence does NATO (or specific NATO members) deploy? Because the proposed measures essentially imply direct and full Russia-NATO war, if not on Russian/NATO soil, which brings a lot of implications I don't like (such as nuclear dimension).

 

On the PRC - basically if before Ukraine Russia was thinking about staying sort of on the fence between the East and West, recent events have firmly pushed us east wards, de facto completing an alliance with the PRC. Such alliance is not only economical (currency swaps, energy and more importantly other industries deals) but also semi defensive in nature at the moment.

Morever attacking Russia directly in such situation would lead to en mass use of tactical nuclear weapons (~1000 weapons in the first wave), which would sort of defeat the point of China going north. Not that it needs to - the conditions for Chinese companies to do business there are good anyway, and who would ever wish to live in place like Yakutsk (except Russians ofc) anyway?

[Schmoly War]

Curious, are there any available ukranian videos from the airport? Ive only seen separatists ones.

[Battlefront.com]

I think I differ in that they might gain air superiority for a short window if they surged assets, but would be unable to maintain it, and the damage done to the Russian military would be yielding air superiority to NATO if not for the duration of hostilities, at least for an uncomfortable few days while the surged assets regenerate and assets are brought in to make good losses and expended equipment.

 

Of course I'm not an air guy by training, but it does seem within reason.

 

Yes, there are definitely scenarios where the Russian air forces would have superiority. The best example would be the few days it took for NATO to respond to the Russian invasion. But I am talking about once the two forces are actively engaged with each other. The second, and I mean second, that NATO gets involved in the air Russia loses air superiority by definition (i.e. it is, at best, air parity). After that Russia will have to settle parity or being kicked out of the sky.

 

I'm curious: if NATO really got involved in a war with Russia, wouldn't opportunistic China jump in to steal some Siberia from Russia while it's busy?

I agree with ikalugin that China would almost for sure never attack Russia unless Russia attacked it first. However, China is definitely a source for concern to Russia. Land purchases and funding of Siberian independence organizations (alleged, of course!) can be seen as a threat. Any weakening of Russia's power in the area would likely be taken advantage of.

I said it several pages ago... China is NOT an ally of Russia. At least how I define ally. If ally is defined as someone actively taking advantage of another to the others detriment and for their benefit... then yes, China is a very good ally of Russia

Personally, I am sure Putin understands this very, very well so I don't think he'd pull too much force out of the east.

Steve

[ikalugin]

If I may allow a short derailment.

 

Well, where (and when) did PRC act against Russian core interests in the recent past?

Russian and Chinese interests coincide, atleast in the current geopolitical situation.

[Battlefront.com]

Curious, are there any available ukranian videos from the airport? Ive only seen separatists ones.

From time to time there are videos. However, the majority have been from separatist sources. That has been true for many, many months. The separatists even had their favorite Life News and Graham Philips with them yesterday, which to me shows that they really thought they would take the airport in full this time.

Steve

[ikalugin]

On the air war - that still depends on the level of NATO involvement, as there are no binding obligations on the members to participate even if Ukraine does invoke article 5. This is why I would ask for a specific scenario to pass judgement.

Edited January 16, 2015 by ikalugin

[Sergius]

Videos can be used against the defenders, I would attribute the difference in video availability to the fact that the Separatists have a lot more irregular yahoos that are there for PR stunts then the Ukrainians.

[Battlefront.com]

If I may allow a short derailment.

 

Well, where (and when) did PRC act against Russian core interests in the recent past?

Politically? I can't think of anything, but that has nothing to do with Russia. It has to do with Chinese and Russian (and Soviet before that) interests being similar. Generally speaking, what was good for one was good for the other. But that was incidental.

Russian and Chinese interests coincide, atleast in the current geopolitical situation.

The oil deal struck with Russia last year was not good for Russia at all. Industry experts think that perhaps Russia might break even on it. Both talk about cooperation, but the Chinese were definitely able to take advantage of Russia's political and economic weakness. Friends (allies) don't do that.

I'll say this again. Almost 1/2 of China's entire GDP is the result of trade with Europe, the US, and those closely aligned with one or both. Russia's trade with China barely registers on the chart. Do not think, for even a half a second, that China would take Russia's side in any major conflict. China would most likely sit on the sidelines because that is the smart thing to do. And the Chinese are very, very, very smart people. Very. The Chinese Communist government is almost unique in history in terms of what they've achieved. They did not do that by accident or being average.

Steve

[ikalugin]

The oil deal was fine I was told, especially considering what happened to oil prices recently. But the oil deal is not the important one - the others sighed at the same time are.

 

You appear to assume that growing Chinese geopolitical ambition would not prompt it to challenge US/collective West in the future. They don't need carriers to expand into the Russian Far East or Siberia, or Central Asia for that matter. But then that is a whole other can of worms.

Edited January 16, 2015 by ikalugin

[Sergius]

Given the Chinese see how well going against the West is working out for Russia's economy, why would they think it's a worthwhile pursuit?

[Battlefront.com]

On the air war - that still depends on the level of NATO involvement, as there is no binding obligations on the members to participate even if Ukraine does invoke article 5. This is why I would ask for a specific scenario to pass judgement.

This is true. If individual nations went to war against Russia, then we would have to look at those nations vs. Russia only. But the scenario is NATO going to war with Russia. And for that to happen, on this scale, I do not think any nation that has significant air power would be inactive.

Russia would go up against, at a minimum:

US, UK, Poland, Baltics, Romania, and probably Germany (I would not have said that in 2014) as well as Italy. I think Netherlands, the Nordic countries, and even France would likely participate. That is the bulk of NATO's air capability and it also is all of NATO's eastern most opportunities for air bases.

There is also a question of how quickly NATO could bring its whole force to bear on Ukraine. For sure it would have to ramp up. My guess is that NATO would not become involved (in fact) until it had sufficient assets available. They have been building up that since the Ukraine war started and Russia has continued to conduct provocation flights near/in EU/NATO airspace. So the situation now is that NATO has an action plan they could put into effect on extremely short notice. February 2014? The exact opposite. The fumbling of eastern Ukraine has allowed the West's political and military staffs time to plan for the near future.

Steve

[ikalugin]

Given the Chinese see how well going against the West is working out for Russia's economy, why would they think it's a worthwhile pursuit?

Resources are finite. Growing demand for them (due to the increase in the expected standards of living) in the east and south-east asia would bring many conflicts in the future.

[Battlefront.com]

The oil deal was fine I was told, especially considering what happened to oil prices recently.

I examined this in depth at the time. I take a very different view. Partly because Russia and China were negotiating for 10 years over this deal and China got a better deal than what Russia had in the past offered. There is a lot more to it than that, but since it is off topic I'll stop there.

But the oil deal is not the important one - the others sighed at the same time are.

Since Russia has lost most of its major business partners in the West, it is important. For sure Putin and Kremlin leaders have been calling the deal a replacement for the lost trade with Europe. It isn't even close to doing that.

 

You appear to assume that growing Chinese geopolitical ambition would not prompt it to challenge US/collective West in the future. They don't need carriers to expand into the Russian Far East or Siberia, or Central Asia for that matter. But then that is a whole other can of worms.

It is, but China is in a very delicate internal political position right now. Economically they are approaching stagnation even at 7% growth. Like Russia, the population of China has put up with less freedom and more corruption than other nations because economic life has improved greatly while the worst of the oppression and corruption has been removed from daily life. China can not afford to have things collapse with the West any more than the West can afford (short term) to have trade with China interrupted. Which is why Taiwan is still independent and North Korea is still a pain in the world's bum.

Steve

[ikalugin]

Steve, I have insider knowledge on those deals. But then I guess that is where we end this. 

[Battlefront.com]

Oh, there is this video that was uploaded today from the Ukrainian side. It shows "Cyborgs" playing soccer on the 1st floor of the terminal:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MyzkUcjW5qU

Reports came in during the fighting that the separatists were using chemical weapons and/or tear gas. It turned out they were simply laying down smoke so they could withdraw with their wounded.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

Steve, I have insider knowledge on those deals. But then I guess that is where we end this.

Obviously we must, even if it was not off topic. I'd have to see what your insider information was in order to evaluate it against the publicly available information.

Steve

[Schmoly War]

Oh, there is this video that was uploaded today from the Ukrainian side. It shows "Cyborgs" playing soccer on the 1st floor of the terminal:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MyzkUcjW5qU

Reports came in during the fighting that the separatists were using chemical weapons and/or tear gas. It turned out they were simply laying down smoke so they could withdraw with their wounded.

Steve

 

 

Source?

Edited January 16, 2015 by Schmoly War