US Anti Aircraft defences

[LUCASWILLEN05]

Hmmm, 1 Trillion (capitalized, because that much money SHOULD be) dollars? Ooh, that could reduced the current on-book deficit by...6%.

 

The biggest threat to the US is not the Russian air force. It is the US monetary policy.

 

Back to the topic...

 

The Russians have some great tech and great weapons. However, their economy prevents them from pursuing the old "quantity has a quality all its own" meme. Even if Putin orders production without payment (which he can do), the numbers of weapons they can put up are too few. Sure, they may get an E3 or two. (BTW, what scenario do you think the E3's and their fighters practice the most? If you guess "an enemy attack on the E3", you'd be close.) But, so what? Splash an E3. Okay, US tosses another one up. What forces would the Russians have lost to get that momentary advantage? How many of those AWACS raids could they carry out?

 

The US is used to profligate weapons purchases. Compare the number of 5th Generation fighters (F22/F35) the US is committed to buying (money allocated, not dream plans by the USAF brass). Compare that to EVERY OTHER NATION'S (combined) numbers.

 

Do the same exercise with M1A2 SEP. The Russians are talking Armata. Great. How many?

 

Not to be sanguine, or even arrogant, about it, but the US does not have an oppo in the same league. Some areas are near-equality. (Look at the hackers used by different nations, or some of the Russian missile tech.) But, overall, I think the nearest military threat to the US would be China. That's based on the modernization drive and the economy supporting it. (However, even that seems to be falling apart a bit.) Not to say the US can keep up the current level of military expenditure, either.

 

True power is based on the economy.

 

Paul Kennedy The Rise and Fall of Great Powers. Read it over 20 years ago while working on my History and Politics degree. it was one f the History Proffessor's favourite texts. it also made a great deal of sense - as I recall I often qouted from Kennedy in my histry essays - and some f my international politics essay as well :-)

 

Ecoomics, as Kennedy argues is of the greatest importanvce to the ability o a Great Power to maintain that status and US military spending probably won't keep up with a weakening economy. Is the US even spending on what it actually needs? Nuclear weapons versus conventional systems. And which of these capabilities is most likely to be used?

[Chazz]

I am not sure why people are so hung up about the question of Air superiority. At the end of the day, that still wont matter much for the guy on the ground.

 

Yes, of course the USAF is the only 'A Team' in the world (for now) and it has superiority in both quality and quantity. I still think the Air war would be viciously contested for purely logistical reasons if nothing else. But again, even if it isn't and and the US is able to establish Air superiority over most of the conflict zone, that still doesn't mean completely smooth sailing for ground troops.

 

In 1982, the Syrians were hopelessly outmatched in the air in every conceivable way. The IAF ruled the skies with impunity. Even under those circumstances, the Syrian Air Force still managed to sneak in few attack bombers and few helicopters with devastating effects against enemy ground troops.

 

I get the sense that people here are arguing two different things. You can argue that strategically, attacks like this wont matter much in the sense that it won't change the bigger picture and that is probably true. Heck, attacks like this might probably even be shot down on the way back for all I care. However, these kinds of attacks are still very possible even in 'air superiority' situation and when they happen the only thing the guy on the ground has to protect him is a stinger and that as we are discussing is woefully inadequate. It won't matter to the guy whose platoon has just been bombed that USAF tell him that we got your back buddy because we have 'air superiority' and this attack wont happen in your sector again. All that of course, is still under best case scenario.

 

I find it bizarre that the US army is so lax at addressing this problem, or sometimes even admitting that there is a problem in the first place.

[dan/california]

Its a question of resource allocation.  Is the best use of the Armies limited budget 1) An ATGM that will beat all current and next gen APS 2) A raven sized drone that can survive in a high threat environment, or some equivalent capability. 3) A better APS system for our own vehicles 4) Attempt to do the Air-Forces job.  Please submit your ordered list of priorities.

[slysniper]

Oh, it really does come down to money.

 

How many times in the last 20 years have you heard of the concept of getting rid of tanks and preform the same functions with lighter , faster machines, more mobile.

Why waste money on tanks that are so costly.

 

They keep trying, I guess it is just a good thing that they fail so bad when testing their new doctrines that we have been saved the fate of watching them disarm our country of M-1's.

(which really makes total sence- not- since the only real wars we fought with actual battle lines in the last 60 years and won were influenced by our armour units.) 

 

Yes, I can sleep easy at night with that kind of logic being used by those who are making the decisions  -  I always like to think of the line

" The Enemy from Within"

 

I think that will be line used when and if the US ever falls from grace.

 

Who destroyed Rome , The Roman's did

[LUCASWILLEN05]

I am not sure why people are so hung up about the question of Air superiority. At the end of the day, that still wont matter much for the guy on the ground.

 

Yes, of course the USAF is the only 'A Team' in the world (for now) and it has superiority in both quality and quantity. I still think the Air war would be viciously contested for purely logistical reasons if nothing else. But again, even if it isn't and and the US is able to establish Air superiority over most of the conflict zone, that still doesn't mean completely smooth sailing for ground troops.

 

In 1982, the Syrians were hopelessly outmatched in the air in every conceivable way. The IAF ruled the skies with impunity. Even under those circumstances, the Syrian Air Force still managed to sneak in few attack bombers and few helicopters with devastating effects against enemy ground troops.

 

I get the sense that people here are arguing two different things. You can argue that strategically, attacks like this wont matter much in the sense that it won't change the bigger picture and that is probably true. Heck, attacks like this might probably even be shot down on the way back for all I care. However, these kinds of attacks are still very possible even in 'air superiority' situation and when they happen the only thing the guy on the ground has to protect him is a stinger and that as we are discussing is woefully inadequate. It won't matter to the guy whose platoon has just been bombed that USAF tell him that we got your back buddy because we have 'air superiority' and this attack wont happen in your sector again. All that of course, is still under best case scenario.

 

I find it bizarre that the US army is so lax at addressing this problem, or sometimes even admitting that there is a problem in the first place.

 

Let's see The Six Day War and Operation Desert Stoerm. Two examples of what happens to a modern arrmy that has no air cover at all. Extreme cases to be sure. Most modern conventional wars are ore likely to look like Yom Kippur or the Falkands. And both of these were nasty gutter fights and, for the victor, a difficult, hard fought and costly affair. The 2017 Ukrane War could very well fall int that category and not  be quick and easy victories like Desert Storm or Iraqi Freedom.

 

I am bnot saying the stinger itselff is inadequate. But the plarform on which it is carried such as an armoured HMMMV could very well be given the high intensity armourd combat environment this war is llikely to be

[LUCASWILLEN05]

So, given the high intensity armoured combat environment of CMBS how does the US company/combat team commander conduct tactical air defence against the Russian air threat with wwhat he does have. Stinger teams riding in HMMMVS with little or no armour that must operate on or shrly behind the front lines ad which must dismount in order to fight. And must be in a position where they can see aircrat aproach and then to engage them effectively. Which makes cover like buildngs or trees inappropriate for example. And in terrain that can be hilly in places

 

Which factors make them potentially vulnerable to direct or indirect enemy fires

[Apocal]

I am not sure why people are so hung up about the question of Air superiority. At the end of the day, that still wont matter much for the guy on the ground.

 

Because losing air superiority is an actual thing that will lose a modern war. Getting a handful of companies bombed sporadically will not.

 

 

 

I am bnot saying the stinger itselff is inadequate. But the plarform on which it is carried such as an armoured HMMMV could very well be given the high intensity armourd combat environment this war is llikely to be

 

Stinger (like all man-portable and short-range AD) is out-ranged by modern aircraft delivered weapons. You're literally talking about how you'd like a security blanket on tracks, for all the good it would do.

[Vanir Ausf B]

It's not economical to be 10x better than any possible opponent in every category. You can bankrupt yourself trying. As c3k states, economics is real power. Obsessing over tactical AA defense is missing the forest for the trees.

 

[LUCASWILLEN05]

It's not economical to be 10x better than any possible opponent in every category. You can bankrupt yourself trying. As c3k states, economics is real power. Obsessing over tactical AA defense is missing the forest for the trees.

 

Some things lose you battles, wars or cause unneccessay casualties. You may have the best tanks in the world. Unfortuneately that does not help you against fixed wing fighter bombers or helicopter gunships, Anti aircraft weapons do that job (Combined Arms) and if yours aren't as good (because you invested the dollars in nukes perhaps) then that could end up losing you battles. And perhaps even wars.

 

For the want of a nail the shoe was lost 

For the want of a shoe the horse was lost

For he want of a horse the rider was lost

For the want of a rider the battle was lost

For the want of a battle the Kingdom was lost

And all for the want of a horshoe nail

(Benjamin Franklin)

Edited February 18, 2015 by LUCASWILLEN05

[Chazz]

Because losing air superiority is an actual thing that will lose a modern war. Getting a handful of companies bombed sporadically will not.

 

And? No one claimed otherwise. It is still bizarre for the country with the largest military budget in the world to skimp up on AD because 'who cares if few companies get bombed occasionally, we're gonna win the war anyways'

 

I would imagine that there is a huge difference between 10x better and zero. No one is asking for that, not even 2x better. Heck, even slightly less capable than comparable systems would be good at this point. 

 

Of course bringing economics into this is a great idea, because we all know that every single penny of those billions upon billions is going to the development of the next super duper APFSDS round and improving the non existing APS systems. Not a single dollar is being wasted and/or being spent on vanity projects, nooooo sir.   

Edited February 18, 2015 by Chazz

[Vanir Ausf B]

Anti aircraft weapons do that job (Combined Arms) and if yours aren't as good (because you invested the dollars in nukes perhaps) then that could end up losing you battles. And perhaps even wars.

 

Theoretically, it's possible. But given the overwhelming US advantage in other areas the likelihood is extremely remote.

[Vanir Ausf B]

It is still bizarre for the country with the largest military budget in the world to skimp up on AD because 'who cares if few companies get bombed occasionally, we're gonna win the war anyways

 

Is it? When was the last time a few US companies got bombed?

 

The reason the US Army skimps on AD is because when the US Army actually goes to war those assets end up sitting around doing nothing or get retasked to do something useful. It's an inefficient allocation of resources.

 

Frankly this whole discussion is navel gazing. It matters in Combat Mission but not in reality.

Edited February 18, 2015 by Vanir Ausf B

[Apocal]

And? No one claimed otherwise. It is still bizarre for the country with the largest military budget in the world to skimp up on AD because 'who cares if few companies get bombed occasionally, we're gonna win the war anyways'

 

There is nothing bizarre about it. It only seems bizarre on the relatively level playing field of Combat Mission.

Edited February 18, 2015 by Apocal

[LUCASWILLEN05]

The reason the US Army skimps on AD is because when the US Army actually goes to war those assets end up sitting around doing nothing or get retasked to do something useful. It's an inefficient allocation of resources.

 

Is it? When was the last time a few US companies got bombed?

 

The reason the US Army skimps on AD is because when the US Army actually goes to war those assets end up sitting around doing nothing or get retasked to do something useful. It's an inefficient allocation of resources.

 

Frankly this whole discussion is navel gazing. It matters in Combat Mission but not in reality.

 

Or at least they have done so in the past. Armies typically prepare to fight the last war, not he next one. Since WW2 the US army has not had t fight a war where it has had to face a serious air threat. Oh, it was prepared enough for the war it never acually had to fight, the one against the Soviet Union/

 

But what happened after that? Desert Storm, Bosnia/Kossovo, Iraqi Freedom, Afghamistn, the Islamic State War (it doesn't even have a name. No credible air threat in any of these conflicts - often no air threart at all. So, yes, in thee wars the AD boys have nothing to do. But you are assuming the next war or the one after that is going to be the same as the last few wars the US has fought.

 

Complaisancy and hubris? What hppens if your assumptions about the next war turn out to be wrong. Not only that but badly wrong. And you are facing someone that has a decent air force that doesn't fold in the first few days or even the opening weeks of the conflict.

 

In THAT situation the AD boys are going to have something to do. In fact they are oing to have raher a lot to do. Except you don't have them or hey lack sufficient capability because you cut the funding and gave them weapons systems unfit for purpose. In THAT situation the US military is going t end up looking pretty stupid and serious questions are going to be asked regarding whether all the resulting casualties (the price for peacetime neglect must be paid fo in blood in wartime If the military professionals are not prepared to fight the politicians for what they need in war then, in war, hey will pay the price for their arrogance and hubris - and it won't jus be the politicians to blame for the result.

 

Remember that because one of these days I might well be proven right about this.Just as de Gaulle and Fuller were proven right. And, unlike them I am not a military professional. Just a military history buff and war gamer.

[LUCASWILLEN05]

There is nothing bizarre about it. It only seems bizarre on the relatively level playing field of Combat Mission.

 

Which is still intended to simulae tactical combat at the FEBA/ Tose aircraft each side has ARE the ones that got as fr as this tactical battlefield. Therefore they are the ones we, as those stepping into the combat bots of the tactical commanderwe are actually representing must actually worry about.

 

The scenario designer will hve made some assumptions about the wider air war situation. Nothing bizzare about that

[Vanir Ausf B]

Complaisancy and hubris?

 

Limited resources require tough choices. Even the US Army doesn't get to always have its cake and eat it too. To illustrate, the Army is upgrading it's Stryker brigades to double V-hull variants to better protect against IEDs. The problem? They don't have enough money to complete the program.

 

The Army already fields two DVH brigades while a third is in the works to be fully equipped by the end of fiscal 2016. That’s the good news.

The not-so-good news is that the remaining six brigades remain unfunded in fiscal 2016-2020 budget projections obtained by Defense News.

http://archive.defensenews.com/article/20140112/DEFREG02/301120013/US-Plans-Radical-Upgrade-Stryker-Brigades

So yet another layer of AD or double V-hull Strykers? You decide.

Edited February 18, 2015 by Vanir Ausf B

[Apocal]

 

Complaisancy and hubris? What hppens if your assumptions about the next war turn out to be wrong. Not only that but badly wrong. And you are facing someone that has a decent air force that doesn't fold in the first few days or even the opening weeks of the conflict.

 

Things would have to be going incredibly, ridiculously over the top wrong for someone to successfully blow all 2000+ of tactical aircraft into irrelevance. And if they did so, there isn't a battalion-level air defense system in the world that would stop them from rolling us, given the limitations on those systems.

 

The fact that these systems actually work and consistently down aircraft in CMBS is about the most unrealistic thing in the game.

 

 

Which is still intended to simulae tactical combat at the FEBA/ Tose aircraft each side has ARE the ones that got as fr as this tactical battlefield. Therefore they are the ones we, as those stepping into the combat bots of the tactical commanderwe are actually representing must actually worry about.

 

The scenario designer will hve made some assumptions about the wider air war situation. Nothing bizzare about that

 

There is very little realistic or simulation-like about CMBS' depiction of air defense.

Edited February 18, 2015 by Apocal

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

 

 

Frankly this whole discussion is navel gazing. It matters in Combat Mission but not in reality.

 

Yep. The odds of the US military facing an air threat that is a serious danger to ground forces hovers somewhere around zero.  SHORAD type platforms like Stinger are hardly worth investing in in terms of money or capability, larger systems are expensive and will certainly likely rarely leave the motorpool.  PATRIOT is still relevant because of the TBM capability, but everything else is pretty marginal.

 

 

 

Is it? When was the last time a few US companies got bombed?

 

Korea I believe.

 

 

 

The point is though that the enemy we are talking about fighting here is not the Iraqis. It isn't Islamic State. It isn't the Serbs. It isn;t ever Iran or North Korea. It is Russa - ome of the USA's Great Power rivals. This is the Premier League we are dealing wit. Not the Second Divisio and it would be a very serious mistake to underestimate them As Charles XII, Napoleon and Hitler did.

 

1988 called, they'd like their analysis back.  The Russian air force is smaller, less capable, less exercised, and will be trying to keep JDAMS away from their ground forces in the event of a conventional conflict.  They're pretty much the consumate second stringer.  While underestimating a threat is a bad idea, at the same time failing to understand the actual threat (which would be hybrid warfare) and applying a decades old strategic template of Regional Frontal Aviation Regiments flying wingtip to wingtip over the Inner German Border to crush the BDR's capital in Bonn is equally dangerous.  The Russian air force is not the Soviet Air Force, and extensive tactical ADA assets are a waste of effort against them.

 

 

 

It is like an insurance policy. Chances are that house fire you took out the policy against won't happen. You are a sensible guy and take lots of precautions. But if it does happen and you are not insured it is catastrophic. Likewise if that Russian air strike gets through your barely protected tank company that you did so much work training and mintaining is going to get gutted.

 

No.  Tactical ADA for the US is pretty much flaming Ebola infected monkey insurance.  It's a lot of money spent on a nearly impossibly remote, albiet possibly dangerous situation that very likely will never get anywhere near you or your house.

 

 

 

Another interesting example is the Falkands 1982. Britain's tactical air defence on the ground was pretty much limited to Rapier. This at a time when the Britisw army was gearing up to  fight the Soviets in Germany where the air threat would have been much worse  than anything the Argetine Air Force could have done. And they stil manged to sink a couple of amphibious landing ships at a place called Bluff Cove

 

The Falklands is an excellent example of the impotance of ground based air defense in the face of a determined air threat.  Despite Rapier, the only really effective air defense in the Falklands was the very limited cap provided by the Sea Harriers.  Had the Brits a fleet carrier it's doubtful there'd have been so many, if any shipping losses, while if they'd covered the island in SAMs the results wouldn't have changed much.

 

 

 

 Just a military history buff and war gamer.

 

This to me is sort of the arrogance involved in this.  It's terribly and deeply sparky to assume that somehow, the whole defense establishment is just too dumb to make the wise choices that someone who's read a lot of military history can make.  

 

What do you think military professionals do?  How much history do you think I've read?  Don't you think that people equally smart, and equally educated have come to the same conclusion of "SHORAD is not an Army priority?"  

 

But no.  You've read a book!  You know better!

 

I'm not trying to be insulting but its sort of silly, like someone screaming at the TV over the "idiot" plays made by a football coach.  If it was so easy, or so obvious, why do we pay officers to make these choices, instead of just making it an internet poll on militaryhistory.com?

 

The reality is pretty simple.  SHORAD right now in a time of stand-off type systems is increasingly obsolete.  No longer is it a flight of MIG-27s dropping dumb bombs on a tank company, it's several miles out a standoff system is released, and it's hitting possibly before I even hear the jet.  Anything Stinger based is in effect, as someone else pointed out, the M44A1 "Comfy Blankie" in terms of air protection.  Anything larger than that is not much better, at the cost of being a very expensive system with no other use.

 

The only real air defense is shooting down the enemy attackers miles and miles before they're within engagement range, and the only system that seriously does that is another airplane.  The US has more than enough advanced fighters, more than enough command and control for said fighters, and there is no reasonable chance that an enemy strike will get through, without suffering enough losses to render any gains far out of proportion to aviation assets lost.

 

This isn't 1988.  We're not facing a larger, equally advanced air force.  Shoe is on our foot, and the only ground forces that honestly have something to worry about is anyone who's on the receiving end of NATO/US aviation*.

 

 

*Or subject to the USAF's inability to tell the difference between friendly and hostile tanks. 

Edited February 18, 2015 by panzersaurkrautwerfer

[LUCASWILLEN05]

Things would have to be going incredibly, ridiculously over the top wrong for someone to successfully blow all 2000+ of tactical aircraft into irrelevance. And if they did so, there isn't a battalion-level air defense system in the world that would stop them from rolling us, given the limitations on those systems.

 

The fact that these systems actually work and consistently down aircraft in CMBS is about the most unrealistic thing in the game.

 

I never said that would happen. We are talking about tactical situations involviing just a handful of fixed wing aircraft or helicopters are involved in a localized action.

 

Hwever, if similar things happened in multiple local actions the blood price builds up. It may ot be s extreme as what happened to my Combat eam. That is a mistake I will probably only make once. But in the early days of a war thee are going to be plenty of mistakes. Sme of them my resemblee mine. And sometimes it may be the result of simple bad luck. Consider if you will what lessons apply from Bluff Cove and the loss of the Sir Galahad and the Sir Tristram.

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

 

 

Consider if you will what lessons apply from Bluff Cove and the loss of the Sir Galahad and the Sir Tristram.

 

That SAMs are worthless and that a good CAP is the only thing that will keep you safe.

[Apocal]

I never said that would happen. We are talking about tactical situations involviing just a handful of fixed wing aircraft or helicopters are involved in a localized action.

 

Hwever, if similar things happened in multiple local actions the blood price builds up. It may ot be s extreme as what happened to my Combat eam. That is a mistake I will probably only make once. But in the early days of a war thee are going to be plenty of mistakes. Sme of them my resemblee mine. And sometimes it may be the result of simple bad luck. Consider if you will what lessons apply from Bluff Cove and the loss of the Sir Galahad and the Sir Tristram.

 

Funny you should use that as an example: those ships were covered by local air defenses (Sea Harrier's weren't present for the first attack) but Argentinean aircraft still managed to deliver their ordnance successfully and escape unscathed for the first raid. In the second raid, the ships were covered by aircraft and -- while the RN still had a landing craft sunk -- at least managed to shoot down three out of the four A-4s involved. Meanwhile, another ship, a frigate with Sea Cat missiles, was off on picket duty, attacked and struck with four bombs. The only reason the ship survived was due to improper fuzing, otherwise it would have been a flotsam surrounded by fuel oil.

 

I don't know why you would use this as an example of what happens without SHORAD; they had adequate coverage, it just didn't make a damned bit of difference.

Edited February 18, 2015 by Apocal

[LUCASWILLEN05]

Yep. The odds of the US military facing an air threat that is a serious danger to ground forces hovers somewhere around zero.  SHORAD type platforms like Stinger are hardly worth investing in in terms of money or capability, larger systems are expensive and will certainly likely rarely leave the motorpool.  PATRIOT is still relevant because of the TBM capability, but everything else is pretty marginal.

 

 

Korea I believe.

 

 

1988 called, they'd like their analysis back.  The Russian air force is smaller, less capable, less exercised, and will be trying to keep JDAMS away from their ground forces in the event of a conventional conflict.  They're pretty much the consumate second stringer.  While underestimating a threat is a bad idea, at the same time failing to understand the actual threat (which would be hybrid warfare) and applying a decades old strategic template of Regional Frontal Aviation Regiments flying wingtip to wingtip over the Inner German Border to crush the BDR's capital in Bonn is equally dangerous.  The Russian air force is not the Soviet Air Force, and extensive tactical ADA assets are a waste of effort against them.

 

 

No.  Tactical ADA for the US is pretty much flaming Ebola infected monkey insurance.  It's a lot of money spent on a nearly impossibly remote, albiet possibly dangerous situation that very likely will never get anywhere near you or your house.

 

 

The Falklands is an excellent example of the impotance of ground based air defense in the face of a determined air threat.  Despite Rapier, the only really effective air defense in the Falklands was the very limited cap provided by the Sea Harriers.  Had the Brits a fleet carrier it's doubtful there'd have been so many, if any shipping losses, while if they'd covered the island in SAMs the results wouldn't have changed much.

 

 

This to me is sort of the arrogance involved in this.  It's terribly and deeply sparky to assume that somehow, the whole defense establishment is just too dumb to make the wise choices that someone who's read a lot of military history can make.  

 

What do you think military professionals do?  How much history do you think I've read?  Don't you think that people equally smart, and equally educated have come to the same conclusion of "SHORAD is not an Army priority?"  

 

But no.  You've read a book!  You know better!

 

I'm not trying to be insulting but its sort of silly, like someone screaming at the TV over the "idiot" plays made by a football coach.  If it was so easy, or so obvious, why do we pay officers to make these choices, instead of just making it an internet poll on militaryhistory.com?

 

The reality is pretty simple.  SHORAD right now in a time of stand-off type systems is increasingly obsolete.  No longer is it a flight of MIG-27s dropping dumb bombs on a tank company, it's several miles out a standoff system is released, and it's hitting possibly before I even hear the jet.  Anything Stinger based is in effect, as someone else pointed out, the M44A1 "Comfy Blankie" in terms of air protection.  Anything larger than that is not much better, at the cost of being a very expensive system with no other use.

 

The only real air defense is shooting down the enemy attackers miles and miles before they're within engagement range, and the only system that seriously does that is another airplane.  The US has more than enough advanced fighters, more than enough command and control for said fighters, and there is no reasonable chance that an enemy strike will get through, without suffering enough losses to render any gains far out of proportion to aviation assets lost.

 

This isn't 1988.  We're not facing a larger, equally advanced air force.  Shoe is on our foot, and the only ground forces that honestly have something to worry about is anyone who's on the receiving end of NATO/US aviation*.

 

 

*Or subject to the USAF's inability to tell the difference between friendly and hostile tanks. 

 

 

I repeat. We are not talking about the Iraqi Air Force here. We are talking about the RUSSIAN AIR FORCE. Which is a modern and professional air force that is modernising

http://www.ibtimes.com/russian-air-force-navy-receive-200-new-aircraft-2015-more-most-world-air-forces-have-1805100

 

An air force of a not inconsiderable size.

 

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/russia/av-orbat.htm

 

With modern aircraft.

 

It may not be in quite the league of the USAF (or at least the league the USAF thinks it is in - it may or may not prve to be the case when it comes up against a halfway decent oppoent. And, let;s see, the last time that happened was Vietnam I believe. OK so the US might not have lost militarily. But it did fail to win!

 

As a US military officer you are the product of an institution. But institutions have been known to suffer instiutional arrogance  and huris.

 

Look at what happened to the Prussiamn Army in 1806, the Austrian army in 1866, the French army in 1870, the British and French armies in 1940 and evwen the US army in Vietnam.

 

Oh, you can ignore what I say because I am not, like you, a military professional. Just a war gamer and miltary history buff. But that does not mean that I might not bee proven right.

 

Telll you what. Let's reconvene at the Russia - Ukranian border and fight this war for real. Because that is the only way to establish for sure which of us is right!

[Apocal]

Telll you what. Let's reconvene at the Russia - Ukranian border and fight this war for real. Because that is the only way to establish for sure which of us is right!

 

Well, NATO already explicitly passed on Fulda Gap in Reverse over the Ukraine and Russians have just stopped just short of outright declaring direct western military intervention would mean safeties off their nukes, so that won't be happening.

[LUCASWILLEN05]

That SAMs are worthless and that a good CAP is the only thing that will keep you safe.

 

Hmm That's the attitude the IAF had prior to the Youm Kippur War. And did't the US lose quite a few pllanes to these "useless SAMs over North Vietnam. And even a few over Iraq in 1991?

 

Sure a good CAP helps. A lot. But it still won't be foolproff.

 

Let me ask you a question. As a professional tank compan commander what measures would you be using on the 2017 Ukranian battlefield would you be using to protect your command against any possible Russian air threat. And please don't tell me you would ignpre the air threat - that could get you killed along with many of your men.I really would be very interested in your proffesional advice and guidance on this as it would definately help me improve my CMBS tactics playing on the US side and even from the Ukranan and Russian perspective

[dan/california]

Hmm That's the attitude the IAF had prior to the Youm Kippur War. And did't the US lose quite a few pllanes to these "useless SAMs over North Vietnam. And even a few over Iraq in 1991?

 

 

The Israelis lost a lot of aircraft attacking the Syrians.  But even in a situation of massive technological surprise the Arab air forces played almost no offensive role.  A leap in SAM tech might make your own forces a lot safer.  Its not going to do much for your strike aircraft over the other guys territory.