US Anti Aircraft defences

[LUCASWILLEN05]

LUCASWILLEN05,

 

Things are, bluntly put, awful, but would be much better if the US bought what several of its allies already have--NASAM National Advanced Surface-to-Air Missile System). I deem it outrageous that the US, with its whopping defense budget, doesn't provide its ground combat troops anything more potent than Stinger before reaching way up the line to the Patriot, yet the Netherlands do, to which I might add Norway and Finland (which also has SA-11/Buk M1).  I've said it before, and I'll say it again. The US military has no real experience of being under serious air attack of its ground forces since Tunisia in very late 1942. Were there other air attacks later? Sure. But Tunisia (started mid November 1942) was where the US last felt the real lash of ground attack aircraft.

 

The Russians were under German air attack throughout WW I and clear to the end of WW II. In fact, the last known Luftwaffe combat footage was of a Ju-87G tankbuster going into action at the Oder! The Russians have also seen the devastation US air power inflicted in Korea, Vietnam, GWs I and II, also Kosovo, which wasn't, as they say, our best performance, plus Iraq post OIF and Afghanistan.The Russians had not just observers, but military advisors, military-technical experts, POW interrogators and even combat pilots and troops in both Korea and Vietnam, to name but two. They've also kept a keen eye on the 1967 War, the Yom Kippur War, Bekaa Valley and many other things in the Middle East.  Air power is a threat to them every bit as credible as a loaded pistol aimed right into their faces, and they treat it accordingly, meeting the threat at every level from AK fire on up through mobile systems capable of dealing with everything clear up to a Trident SLBM. The US military lacks the institutional memory the Russian military does,which to this day deeply studies WW II and its lessons. The US ground forces desperately need a highly capable tactical SAM to deal with a multiplicity of threats.

 

Regards,

 

John Kettler

 

Back in the 1980s the US expected ground forces to come under Soviet air attack if the balloon went up in Germany but the wars fought by the US since the end of the Cold War lacked a credible air opponent, certainly after the first couple of days. It looks like a classic case of preparing to fight the last war. But what happens if the "next war " is against someone like Russia or China whose airforce coulsd put up a credible cotest for the air, at least for a while.

 

I think both John and I agree hat this is a serious error by the US Defence planners, procurers and the military. Perhaps it was done to balance the books, perhaps for other reasons. But mistakes like this have often had to be paid for in blood. If this game highlights one real world lesson it is the danger to the US military of the neglected air defences and the price that could be paid for neglect and complaisance in a near future conflict.

 

We all know what happens to armies that are not prepared.

[LUCASWILLEN05]

Or they just expect to have full Air supremacy from day one or two...if they really go "all in" like they would in a conflict against russia.

 

I wouldn't count on the air war being as easy ay you think. The Russian air force are not the Iraqis of 1991 r the Sebs of 1991. And the Russians are upgrading their air force.

 

http://www.ibtimes.com/russian-air-force-receive-fifth-generation-stealth-fighter-jet-1810796

 

It could well be several weeks or loger ino a coflict before the USAF has anything like full control of the air. And while the air battle contiues Russian air strikes will be getting through and ground forces with weak air defences thanks to pre war neglecty and complaisancy will suffer for that. I have seen this happen in many of the scenarios and it is not pretty. In one game I had an entre combat team moving across oen terrainwhenthey wee caught by twwo (maybe three Hinds. Before I knew what had happened  had lst four tanks and almost a dozen Bradleys along with many of their pasengers. In part this hppened beccause the Stingers I did have were out of position and I had under estimated the Russian air threat. A mistake like that might very well be made by real world commanders on the batlefield and it could result in a serious tactical defeat and a failed mission.  Which could in turn ruin an entire operation!

Edited February 17, 2015 by LUCASWILLEN05

[BlackAlpha]

Back in the 1980s the US expected ground forces to come under Soviet air attack if the balloon went up in Germany but the wars fought by the US since the end of the Cold War lacked a credible air opponent, certainly after the first couple of days. It looks like a classic case of preparing to fight the last war. But what happens if the "next war " is against someone like Russia or China whose airforce coulsd put up a credible cotest for the air, at least for a while.

 

I think both John and I agree hat this is a serious error by the US Defence planners, procurers and the military. Perhaps it was done to balance the books, perhaps for other reasons. But mistakes like this have often had to be paid for in blood. If this game highlights one real world lesson it is the danger to the US military of the neglected air defences and the price that could be paid for neglect and complaisance in a near future conflict.

 

We all know what happens to armies that are not prepared.

 

I don't think the US is not prepared. They probably simply don't need more anti air units. Who will they use the anti air units against? NATO is not going to invade Russia or China or any country that has a considerable air presence. In the event Russia or China attacks the West (one way or another, like for example in Ukraine), then there's a good chance NATO forces will rally under the same banner. This means, the US can count on the support of other countries who can provide them with better short range anti air units.

 

Remember that NATO is more than just the US... Other NATO countries may not have as large of an army as the US, but some of them do have some really good stuff.

Edited February 17, 2015 by BlackAlpha

[Sublime]

John do.you have a.link to.the.combat footage of.the stuka.on.the.oder? Im interested in.seeing.if

[Noltyboy]

Well they did try with the good old Sgt York SP AAA.

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

 

 

I think both John and I agree hat this is a serious error by the US Defence planners, procurers and the military. Perhaps it was done to balance the books, perhaps for other reasons. But mistakes like this have often had to be paid for in blood. If this game highlights one real world lesson it is the danger to the US military of the neglected air defences and the price that could be paid for neglect and complaisance in a near future conflict.

 

Ponder this.  How many castles did the mongols build?

[LUCASWILLEN05]

Ponder this.  How many castles did the mongols build?

 

How many battles and wars have been lost through complaisancy, neglect of key weapons sytems and underestimating the enemy. The 1940 Battle of France is a fine example of what can happen

 

I don't think the US is not prepared. They probably simply don't need more anti air units. Who will they use the anti air units against? NATO is not going to invade Russia or China or any country that has a considerable air presence. In the event Russia or China attacks the West (one way or another, like for example in Ukraine), then there's a good chance NATO forces will rally under the same banner. This means, the US can count on the support of other countries who can provide them with better short range anti air units.

 

Remember that NATO is more than just the US... Other NATO countries may not have as large of an army as the US, but some of them do have some really good stuff.

 

I don't think the US is not prepared. They probably simply don't need more anti air units. Who will they use the anti air units against? NATO is not going to invade Russia or China or any country that has a considerable air presence. In the event Russia or China attacks the West (one way or another, like for example in Ukraine), then there's a good chance NATO forces will rally under the same banner. This means, the US can count on the support of other countries who can provide them with better short range anti air units.

 

Remember that NATO is more than just the US... Other NATO countries may not have as large of an army as the US, but some of them do have some really good stuff.

 

Problem is that, in this scenario "the next war" is the one that was least expected. The one against Russia. Sure, NATO countries (or at least some of them will commit their forces. But here's the elephant in the room. European countries have been slashing thir defence budgets as well in order to balace the books following the 2008 Financial Crisis. The same sort of thing that happened in the 1930s.

 

And in 2017 the time has come when those cuts will have to be paid for. And the price will have to be paid in blood and quite possibly in early battlefield defeats. Just as happened in 1940. I am not saying NATO will lose the war. they probably won't as long as the political will is there. But it could prove a long and costly struggle and the risk of defeat is certainly there.

 

Particularly if leaders and militaries are complaisant as they were in 1940. France and Briain had good equipment in 1940, sme of it as god or better than anything the Germans had. But t was the Germans who won the 1940 battleof France and in only six weeks. Indeed, theWehrmach had essentially won the campaign fter he first week.. France 1940 should be an object lesson.

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

 

 

How many battles and wars have been lost through complaisancy, neglect of key weapons sytems and underestimating the enemy. The 1940 Battle of France is a fine example of what can happen

 

But did the Germans build enough bunkers to win in France?  Inquiring minds want to know!

 

Edit: Pardon the sarcasm

 

The 1940 French campaign had a lot to do with what the French had being poorly prepared, not exactly a lack of weapons types,  The French Air Force especially was badly drilled, undermanned, and suffered from a variety of planning failures.  The Maginot Line was not a flexiable reactive defense, it was plan A, with no plan B.

 

The US Air Defense response is simply one that is designed around having a very rapid, flexible response from the sky.  It is build around a historical, and really practical ability to put a lot of very capable planes, paired with some of the best sensors in existence on target.

 

If we're looking for a more historical example, the dynamic between AT gun and tank is best.  The lack of US AT guns is not a sign of negligence, it's looking at a weapons system, making sure the capability is replicated elsewhere, and then discarding it.  There are no peer Air Forces to the the USAF, let alone when you take into account the entire US military air wing.  And while ADA is useful, it's useful if you reasonably expect to not be able to control the airspace above your forces.  And the simple, blunt answer is there are zero air forces on earth that stand a reasonable chance of securing enough air control over some place defended by the US military's air component to surge in CAS assets in amounts enough to justify building an air defense system.

 

The Russian Air Force is upgrading, but it is rebuilding from "criminally broken" to "actually a functional air force again!" It's not a peer air force.  It's more than the Serbs yeah, but simply being better than the Serbs doesn't mean a weeks long struggle, the reality is that the US and NATO can surge way more fighters than the Russians have on hand, more advanced fighters, and the question remains, how long can Russia keep the western air forces out of its backyard, not how often can the Russians get into NATO's air space.  Occasional leakers?  Yeah, maybe, but you can bet money if there's three HINDs making gunruns on a US element, pretty much very fighter in Europe is about to dogpile on said HINDs (which is the utility of a fighter based air defense honestly)

 

The Patriot still exists not because it's the thin red line between swarms of SU-27s killing the entire army, but because we really, really don't like TBMs and would like to not have to worry about them (see the migration to the purely kinetic missile vs having a warhead, bad for ADA, great for murdering Scuds).   Conversely, if you can shoot down a missile, planes are going to be child's play. The stinger exists for the same reason we have AT4s, to deal with leakers that made it through all the other more capable systems. 

 

Which ties it back to the AT gun.  US troops are not waiting to die before the Russian tank hoards, there's tanks, ATGMs, aviation, and a whole other hosts of threats that make just the AT4 and Javelin more than enough to deal with armor.  There's no need for a 120 MM AT gun towed into battle to support US troops because the rest of the weapons reasonably cover that heavy AT weapon gap.  There's no need for a complex ADA system (NAASM is cool, but it's not really better than the Avenger in terms of supporting troops forward anyway) if you have quite possibly the most sophisticated fighter component ever fielded by mankind, paired with enough sensors that simply having them all acquire the same target at max power might be able to flash fry enemy pilots.  

 

The positively one ADA thing I wish existed was something like a slightly better Linebacker.  The Avenger and NAASM, basically truck mounted systems are a liability following behind armor or other heavy forces, and something with armor and a stinger/other short range missile wouldn't hurt (it could even just be a Linebacker with a small radar to be honest).

Edited February 17, 2015 by panzersaurkrautwerfer

[LUCASWILLEN05]

But did the Germans build enough bunkers to win in France?  Inquiring minds want to know!

 

In May 1940 the Germans did no need bunkers. They had the Siegfried Line.

 

The French of course had someting called the Maginot Line which, for poliical and ecoomic reasons stopped at the Belgian Border. Thanks to a certain bright staff officer by the name Erich von Manstein (I believe you have heard of him" the German response went something like this

 

"Achtung! Sehr gut! ve go around!" Right through the Ardennes thought to be impassable for tanks and a little fortress town called Sedan - while Anglo French Mobile forces had been diverted to Belgium to oppose what they expected to be the main Germn offensive. Because that is wha the Germanss did in 1914!

 

It was complaisancy, defence cuts and under estimating the enemy that lost the 1940 Battle of France. And which could be the causes of a US/NATO defeat in a future war.

 

You are a military professional. But hpefully you have read plenty of military history as well - as I am sure yu realise it teaches mny lessons relevant to the future. Perhaps your next read should be a good history of the 1940 Battle of France - and you might consider its' lessons with relevance to the US military and a future war such as the 2017 Ukraine War.

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

See edit.   I am more than familiar with the Battle of France. 

[BlackAlpha]

How many battles and wars have been lost through complaisancy, neglect of key weapons sytems and underestimating the enemy. The 1940 Battle of France is a fine example of what can happen

 

 

 

Problem is that, in this scenario "the next war" is the one that was least expected. The one against Russia. Sure, NATO countries (or at least some of them will commit their forces. But here's the elephant in the room. European countries have been slashing thir defence budgets as well in order to balace the books following the 2008 Financial Crisis. The same sort of thing that happened in the 1930s.

 

And in 2017 the time has come when those cuts will have to be paid for. And the price will have to be paid in blood and quite possibly in early battlefield defeats. Just as happened in 1940. I am not saying NATO will lose the war. they probably won't as long as the political will is there. But it could prove a long and costly struggle and the risk of defeat is certainly there.

 

Particularly if leaders and militaries are complaisant as they were in 1940. France and Briain had good equipment in 1940, sme of it as god or better than anything the Germans had. But t was the Germans who won the 1940 battleof France and in only six weeks. Indeed, theWehrmach had essentially won the campaign fter he first week.. France 1940 should be an object lesson.

 

That may be, but I like to think that these days we are better organized and the western coalition has kept involving itself in all sorts of wars, so we do have the experience on how to work together properly.

[LUCASWILLEN05]

See edit.   I am more than familiar with the Battle of France. 

In which case we both know the lessons of 1940 such as the dangers of defence cuts, neglecting key weapons systems, complaisancy and underestimaing the enemy. I suggest the US military and industrial/military complex has made the same mistake There is probably enough time to fix it and the fix is probably a quick and simple one such as bringing back the Linebacker system fitting some of the Bradleys with the quad Stinger Launchers some of them used to have and training the crew to use them (which I suspect would take the most time) That way the US army would again have a mobile and reasonably well armoured air defence systems. I expect  suitable Stryker variant would a good idea for units equiipped with that vehicle.

Edited February 17, 2015 by LUCASWILLEN05

[LUCASWILLEN05]

That may be, but I like to think that these days we are better organized and the western coalition has kept involving itself in all sorts of wars, so we do have the experience on how to work together properly.

Yes but he Wes's/NATO's ability to fight wars are ot the issue here. Defence cuts and weakness of the tactical air defence system s. And so is the pricwe that might be paid for that in a future war.

[dan/california]

The big need going forward is something to swat small and medium drones.  That needs to be pretty close to the front line.  It would be nice if its ammo didn't cost 200 times the price of the drone you just killed with it, as well.

Edited February 17, 2015 by dan/california

[sburke]

Problem is that, in this scenario "the next war" is the one that was least expected. The one against Russia. Sure, NATO countries (or at least some of them will commit their forces. But here's the elephant in the room. European countries have been slashing thir defence budgets as well in order to balace the books following the 2008 Financial Crisis. The same sort of thing that happened in the 1930s.

 

The "next" unexpected war is the use by Russia of hybrid war, whereby they claim there force aren't really involved. They hide behind a proxy. If NATO goes toe to toe with Russia that won't work any longer and Russia is less prepared to fight that next real war by far than the west. Simply put Russia is not significantly more capable of waging an offensive war against the west than Hussein was. In Putin's mind he may think Russia is still a first world power. If this escalates to that degree however he will find out just how badly mistaken that premise is. Russia has no power projection capability to the degree that the USSR had. There will be no "Battle of the Atlantic", the Russia navy isn't even a ghost of it's former might. The best hope of survival of the Russian Air Force is to stay on the Russian side of that border as a threat in being. If it were to fly into Ukrainian airspace and that includes the entire sovereign area of Ukraine, they won't have an Air Force.

The only real question for CMBS scenario creation is how well does NATO do at overcoming Russian air defenses while maintaining it's defense of Ukrainian air space.

[slysniper]

Wars, always hard to predict the future and what will happen. but a enemy that is preparing for battle is always looking for the weaknesses of their enemy to use to their own advantage.

 

I think of pearl harbor - America was cocky with the power that they held and did not think the enemy could challenge their power in the sea.

 

Well History shows how that worked out and the cost it involved.

 

I for one think we Americans are again cocky and think we have a Military that is unchallengable from without, but if we were to look at it more closely. There is many signs of weakness .  ( Our present strength comes from the Techno advantages we have, more than anything else..)

 

Now the question is, if a enemy was planning and preparing somehow to take that away in some type of high tech warfare that had not been planned on. Would we really be all that strong. 

 

And if you have any real knowledge of how this high tech stuff is being made, it is sad to say it is not within the control of our country. Much is being done from other Nato countries also.

 

And if one thing is for sure, with how fast things can change in our days and times. I can see any country for the right price get the latest new gismo. So is it far fetched to think that a enemy  could get the jump on the next new technology that could swing the advantage to them. Not in my mind.

 

There is plenty of greed and hate in the world still, much of it pointed at America. I for one just think we rely too heavy on our tecno advantage and we are cutting corners and items and size of our forces and that we are becoming more and more dependent on outside sources for creating our war machine.

 

Only the future will tell if our present decisions will be costly in that point of time.

[Apocal]

The big need going forward is something to swat small and medium drones.  That needs to be pretty close to the front line.  It would be nice if its ammo didn't cost 200 times the price of the drone you just killed with it, as well.

 

Stingers exist.

 

 

Yes but he Wes's/NATO's ability to fight wars are ot the issue here. Defence cuts and weakness of the tactical air defence system s. And so is the pricwe that might be paid for that in a future war.

 

What do you call over sixteen hundred fighters in the US inventory?

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

 

 

The big need going forward is something to swat small and medium drones.  That needs to be pretty close to the front line.  It would be nice if its ammo didn't cost 200 times the price of the drone you just killed with it, as well

 

Why do you think the US military has such a hard-on for lasers right now?  Doesn't take much to burn a hole in a drone or burn out it's optics.  

 

 

 

In which case we both know the lessons of 1940 such as the dangers of defence cuts, neglecting key weapons systems, complaisancy and underestimaing the enemy. I suggest the US military and industrial/military complex has made the same mistake There is probably enough time to fix it and the fix is probably a quick and simple one such as bringing back the Linebacker system fitting some of the Bradleys with the quad Stinger Launchers some of them used to have and training the crew to use them (which I suspect would take the most time) That way the US army would again have a mobile and reasonably well armoured air defence systems. I expect  suitable Stryker variant would a good idea for units equiipped with that vehicle.

 

No.  Linebacker wasn't that good of a system, it just means that I, as a about to be former tanker wouldn't have to pre-site my Stinger teams, or worry about my Avenger getting too close to hostile fire.  The only capabilities it had different than a normal Brad was the Stinger launcher from under armor, and an IFF  interrogator.  For leaker HINDs that's enough, but even conventional Brads can engage helicopters just as well with their 25 MM, and tanks have the bear mace option of MPAT (which is a capability retained in the AMP), and the CROW is good for swatting things up close.

 

Further along those lines, the real key to air defense is ensuring there's a weapon in the air, towards a bad guy when needed.  If that was done by a Ledbetter Device, a wormhole delivering an AIM-120 out of a clear blue sky, or an F-22 vectored by an E-3 it's irrelevant so long as red air isn't flying anymore.  

 

What sets the US Air component, and NATO when flying with the US military, is the ability to achieve near constant air surveillance and combat air patrols.  No other country has the serious ability to maintain that sort of coverage just in terms of numbers of operational planes alone, let alone modern aircraft (which the US has more than enough by itself, let alone with NATO augmentation).  Russia relies on ground systems for air defense because it knows that it cannot match NATO in the air.  It's simple economics in terms of platforms and pilots.  Ground systems are less capable, but much less expensive allowing for greater saturation at the expense of effectiveness and utility (or a BUK isn't going to do anything but shoot down planes, while an F-22 can at least lug a bomb or two).  

 

So again, don't ask "why aren't there missiles on the ground???" ask "can we put a missile into a MIG if it shows up?" with the answer to that being "yes, yes we can"

 

The lesson of France wasn't weapons systems, it was organization, employment, and training.  The US military has organized structures to provide air defense, it has a plan to employ those weapons in an air defense role, and the training to use them effectively.  And to top it off it has some really nasty weapons systems to carry out the fruits of that organization, employment and training element.

[Apocal]

Also, from an air defense perspective, you're never going to stop attacks cold with the stuff you find at the battalion-level and below. It is never massed enough, almost never optimally employed as a weapon system and simply out-ranged by too many systems. The outlier SAM success of all time was North Vietnamese SA-2s from 1965-1966, which achieved an actual kill once in every twenty-five launches. That was perfectly sufficient from an operational attrition standpoint, but tactically, a system with that sort of effectiveness still means you're getting pounded better than nine times out of ten. Additionally, all of this is extrapolated from the game balance decision to simply not include stand-off ordnance: Hellfires and LMAVs can both be launched from the backfield, non-LOS, and from a profile that doesn't require overflight the battlefield. Paveway can be dropped from fairly far away or lofted from low-altitude to gain additional range, with JDAMs doing away with the requirement for a laser designator. The SDB is even longer ranged since it is light, has wings and still perfectly suffices to service most battlefield targets.

 

I don't know about the Russian stuff specifically, but a brief skim of Wikipedia shows mostly comparable stand-off ranges on some of their weapons, so I assume they've done their due diligence with getting longer-ranged weapons in the inventory.

[L0ckAndL0ad]

You're taking it from the wrong perspective. Russian equipment and doctrine is made with defending Russian land in mind. And being cost effective. Thus amphibious capabilities to cross rivers (lotsa rivers), distributed multi echelon air defenses (emphasis on defense), conscription (costs less & creates trained reserves if there would be need to mobilize), low priority for the navy and aircraft carriers in particular, etc. US stuff is made for offensive operations worldwide. Airplanes are just more mobile strategically than land based SAMs. That's basically all there is to it.

[LUCASWILLEN05]

Why do you think the US military has such a hard-on for lasers right now?  Doesn't take much to burn a hole in a drone or burn out it's optics.  

 

 

No.  Linebacker wasn't that good of a system, it just means that I, as a about to be former tanker wouldn't have to pre-site my Stinger teams, or worry about my Avenger getting too close to hostile fire.  The only capabilities it had different than a normal Brad was the Stinger launcher from under armor, and an IFF  interrogator.  For leaker HINDs that's enough, but even conventional Brads can engage helicopters just as well with their 25 MM, and tanks have the bear mace option of MPAT (which is a capability retained in the AMP), and the CROW is good for swatting things up close.

 

Further along those lines, the real key to air defense is ensuring there's a weapon in the air, towards a bad guy when needed.  If that was done by a Ledbetter Device, a wormhole delivering an AIM-120 out of a clear blue sky, or an F-22 vectored by an E-3 it's irrelevant so long as red air isn't flying anymore.  

 

What sets the US Air component, and NATO when flying with the US military, is the ability to achieve near constant air surveillance and combat air patrols.  No other country has the serious ability to maintain that sort of coverage just in terms of numbers of operational planes alone, let alone modern aircraft (which the US has more than enough by itself, let alone with NATO augmentation).  Russia relies on ground systems for air defense because it knows that it cannot match NATO in the air.  It's simple economics in terms of platforms and pilots.  Ground systems are less capable, but much less expensive allowing for greater saturation at the expense of effectiveness and utility (or a BUK isn't going to do anything but shoot down planes, while an F-22 can at least lug a bomb or two)

 

If only the Linebacker was still available!.  

 

So again, don't ask "why aren't there missiles on the ground???" ask "can we put a missile into a MIG if it shows up?" with the answer to that being "yes, yes we can"

 

The lesson of France wasn't weapons systems, it was organization, employment, and training.  The US military has organized structures to provide air defense, it has a plan to employ those weapons in an air defense role, and the training to use them effectively.  And to top it off it has some really nasty weapons systems to carry out the fruits of that organization, employment and training element.

 

You are still not getting my point here. What lost France was neglect and complaisance. The same complaisance that is coming accross from you to me. I have to wonder whether this is symptomatic of the same kingd of institutoal complaisancy inherent in British and French armies in 1940. There were thse such as de Gaulle and Fuller who recognised That the problem,was and warned of it. But a complaisant establishment ignored the warnings (the classic "group think") and he price was paid in battlefield defeat.

 

Problem is such new fangled weapons systems such as lasers might not work. And they probably won't be in service very soon. Which in our 2017 leaves a bit of a gap in US capabilities. Sure, you have HMMVs carrying Stinger crews and hey might even be armoured HMMVs but we are tlking high intensity war here. They can perhaps keep up. Is that real;ly going to be enough in the worst case scenario where the enemy contests the air battle for a considerable period and some enemy air strikes.

 

And it could be your tank company that meets the same fate as my in game Combat Team. Caught by enemy air while moviing through open terrain. One probably should not do that but sometimes one has to get to a particular position quickly. Then fixed wing or helicopter gunships catch you at exacly the wrong time and your air defences, such as they are happen to be out of place or engaging other targets. Well, we all know what happens in circumstances like that.

Edited February 17, 2015 by LUCASWILLEN05

[LUCASWILLEN05]

So why was this cut?

 

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/m6.htm

 

Other than to balance Congressional defence budgets of course?

 

A question that, if I am right, could very well be asked during and post war if casualties to air attack are high in particular.

Edited February 17, 2015 by LUCASWILLEN05

[sburke]

Wars, always hard to predict the future and what will happen. but a enemy that is preparing for battle is always looking for the weaknesses of their enemy to use to their own advantage.

 

I think of pearl harbor - America was cocky with the power that they held and did not think the enemy could challenge their power in the sea.

 

Well History shows how that worked out and the cost it involved.

 

I for one think we Americans are again cocky and think we have a Military that is unchallengable from without, but if we were to look at it more closely. There is many signs of weakness .  ( Our present strength comes from the Techno advantages we have, more than anything else..)

 

Now the question is, if a enemy was planning and preparing somehow to take that away in some type of high tech warfare that had not been planned on. Would we really be all that strong. 

 

And if you have any real knowledge of how this high tech stuff is being made, it is sad to say it is not within the control of our country. Much is being done from other Nato countries also.

 

And if one thing is for sure, with how fast things can change in our days and times. I can see any country for the right price get the latest new gismo. So is it far fetched to think that a enemy  could get the jump on the next new technology that could swing the advantage to them. Not in my mind.

 

There is plenty of greed and hate in the world still, much of it pointed at America. I for one just think we rely too heavy on our tecno advantage and we are cutting corners and items and size of our forces and that we are becoming more and more dependent on outside sources for creating our war machine.

 

Only the future will tell if our present decisions will be costly in that point of time.

Couple items, Pearl Harbor while a devastating blow was a Hail Mary pass by Japan. All it accomplished in the long run was to absolutely unite the U.S. for the long haul. In the short run it missed the carriers that were the critical target. I would also not characterize the U.S. as quite "cocky". Japan's aggression in the pacific had been going on for almost 10 years. The U.S. weakness was more not understanding that Japan was reaching a tilting point with a willingness to risk a war it could not win. That is actually a relevant point for the current situation. When does Putin feel he is backed up so much to risk a wider war. I don't think we really know what he is capable of.

As to the U.S. strength, it isn't technology, it is having a highly trained professional army functioning at a very high level with the logistical capability to back it up. ADD to that a technological capability second to none. Even in a low tech grunt intensive conflict that they faced in Iraq, the U.S. soldiers time and again showed a combat capability not dependent on tech to fight.

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

 

 

And it could be your tank company that meets the same fate as my in game Combat Team. Caught by enemy air while moviing through open terrain. One probably should not do that but sometimes one has to get to a particular position quickly. Then fixed wing or helicopter gunships catch you at exacly the wrong time and your air defences, such as they are happen to be out of place or engaging other targets. Well, we all know what happens in circumstances like that.

 

That attack air would have to slip through in terms of sensors:

 

PATRIOT

E-3 Sentry AWACS

Ground based early warning radars

Fighter based sensor systems 

Other NATO radar platforms (which are largely designed to share a common operating picture with US assets)

 

From those sensors, any number of fixed wing assets can be massed on the attacking element.  If the initial waves are ineffective, more planes can be vectored to target (unlike SAMs) until the enemy aviation is no longer mission capable.  

 

Then if they're bopping above the horizon Patriot might just zot them anyway.  

 

If the enemy attack dodges all those sensors, all those planes who's only job is to spot and destroy enemy CAS or strike assets, the ability of a M6 Linebacker to save the day was zero.  Four stingers will not stop the sort of onslaught that would have to exist to bypass that sort of layered defense, and the howling hoard of thousands of PAK-FAs that do not exist would simply pop the M6 like a zit before flying to strafe the tank company to pieces with dual AK-47s fired out the window because you are describing a situation that is so craycray I find it worthwhile to talk about it using that word.

 

The Linebacker was like issuing a shotgun to a tank crew to fend off enemy infantry boarding the tank.  If the infantry slipped through everything else, and is now standing on my turret, that shotgun would be mighty helpful.  But it would only be helpful after EVERYTHING ELSE HAD FAILED SO CATASTROPHICALLY AS TO BOGGLE THE MIND (the rifles are for if we have to leave the tank, not some sort of alamo defense).

 

The M6 was canned after this process:

 

1. Army cancels ADATS

2. Someone decides we still need SHORAD

3. More or less, the M6 is made from nearly off the shelf parts

4. M6 more or less doesn't really do much.  In large exercises, if red air closes with blue forces the M6 is just not enough to matter.  Deployed, what enemy air existed was something the M6 couldn't help with

5. M6 and ADA soldiers serve as adhoc infantry.

6. M6 vehicles are refurbed to replace higher mileage M2/M3 platforms.  

 

It wasn't super useful, even in its heyday.  

[Pablius]

I´m not from the US nor Russia, so I don't have a "patriotic horse" in this race, but more than the lack of SPAA I would be worry for the small number of air superiority dedicated fighters (F-22s)

 

How many can be actually deployed to a foreign theater without degrading continental defenses? 20? 30? maybe 50?, How many on the air at one time? half of that?... even if they can see the enemy from take off to landing they still carry a finite number of AIM-120s

 

Of course there are other assets to close down runways and such, but if talking only about planes, the numbers seem worrisome, maybe they are not and the F-35 turns out to be a great air to air machine, I don´t know, will see when it enters service, until then you have 4 and 4.5 generation aircrafts on both sides with a few F-22s in the mix, perhaps it is enough given superiority in training, sensors and shared information

Edited February 17, 2015 by Pablius