US Anti Aircraft defences

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

 

 

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

 

Here's my issue with this:

 

Just because the Russian Air Force is not the Iraqi Air Force does not ensure they will be successful somehow as WAVES OF NEVER ENDING PAK-FAs USE LASERS TO CRUSH AMERICA.

 

No one here is claiming the hapless Russian Air Force will be handily swept from the sky over the course of 20 minutes.  What we are saying is the Russian Air Force as a smaller, less technically capable force, in the face of a larger, more experienced, more technically advanced force is not likely to be able to conduct air strikes in numbers dangerous enough to require building a dedicated ADA platform to be built.  And further, given this reality of the Russians being the high-tier threat, and not being likely to be able to penetrate the CAP without punishing losses, with the remainder of threats falling far, far, far short of even this modest threat, makes an SHORAD vehicle a huge waste of money and time.

 

 

 

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.

 

I want you to take that attitude to any other job, and not get laughed at.

 

YOU ARE A DOCTOR AND A PRODUCT OF THE MEDICAL INSTITUTION.  I WILL CURE THIS WITH THE MAGIC OF GEMS BECAUSE I READ IT IN A BOOK AND I HAVE PLAYED VIRTUAL SURGEON SEVERAL TIMES GOOD SIR

 

Or possibly:

 

I have built many model planes, and you sir, are a product of the engineering insitution and do not understand the genius of a jet powered biplane.  I've read books, and I own all the microsoft flight simulators.

 

 

 

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 amount of effort and time spent on those IADS networks, vs the ability of them to stop the bombing force was pretty far out of proportion.  They made the attack uncomfortable, and sometimes lethal for individual planes, but like all passive defenses they could be reduced (and destroyed in the case of Yom Kippur and Iraqi in 1991) or simply are unable to inflict enough damage on the attacker to preclude continued attack (again, SAMS or not, Hanoi had a lot of bombs in the weather forecast, shooting down one or two bombers a night didn't effect that).

 

But I'm glad you brought up Vietnam!  Please explain to me how the helpless Americans were not bombed into submission by the NVAF despite a lack of US ADA (well, Dusters aside but they had other jobs)?

 

 

 

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. 

 

Camouflage.  Taking halts in locations with concealment.  Hoping the USAF is doing its job.  If Stinger teams are attached to the Company locating them in the most advantageous terrain.   In terms of being a tank/infantry system, your best defense is the enemy doesn't see you.  If it's a leaker SU-27 being chased by F-22s it's likely not going to live long enough to take the time to find me from 20,000 feet, or acquire me if he's bobbing up and over hill masses.

 

This would even be true with a more robust ADA asset like a Linebacker.  I don't want planes to see me.  They will see me if I pop off missiles  or put rounds in the air though, which could bring the harm my way.  Stinger, or even older systems like Vulcan and Chaparral are low enough p/k that unless I am 100% in danger, enemy is coming for us, I'm not going to draw attention to us.  

 

If we're talking about helicopters same drill, unless they're coming my way/obviously are attacking my position. If that's the case we'll volley fire MPAT, a kill is doubtful (especially given the limited elevation of a tank gun) but the amount of crap that'll put in the air runs a good odd at causing a mission kill, or strongly encouraging the enemy to leave.  Even sabot wouldn't be a bad choice, it's short shot to hit time makes it attractive, and the FCS can hack a helicopter at speed.  

 

If the helicopter is on approach and outside the engagement window of the tank gun, massed .50 cal fire will do in a pinch, again the FCS on the CROW can hack if.  If we've got SLAP loaded it'll ruin faces pretty well, but even standard .50 cal will do a lot of damage if massed on a helicopter (while Hinds and the like are armored against that sort of weapon in places, the fourteen or so of those coming off the company is enough to knock out weapons, shred rotors, brown pilot's pants, and generally encourage them to leave right now.

 

But otherwise the best thing for a ground unit to do is stay out of sight, out of mind, and report REDAIR to higher and hope you're about to make a USAF Pilot's day.  

[dan/california]

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.

We do need to make it VERY clear that any move on any NATO country means war, period.   As a game matter, having this war at the Polish-Ukranian border instead of on the Dnieper make very little difference other than terrain specifics.  

[nsKb]

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.

 

 

 

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

 

I think this is something Battlefront needs to address. ADA vs Helicopter needs a defiant "re balancing" in order to be realistic, AH-64s specifically are way way too vulnerable. Adding the option to make fast jets immune to ADA during scenario creation is also sorely needed. 

[Chazz]

For the record I don't have any issues with the way those systems are modeled in the game. It is simplified of course (this is not DCS) but I think it does a reasonable job. Perhaps Stingers and Strelas are just a tad too lethal at the moment but nothing to make me lose any sleep over.

[apd1004]

I think it's very clear that the US military strategy revolves around air superiority in any theater of operations that we commit forces to. I don't think the US would even put boots on ground in the Ukraine unless the tools were in place to achieve air superiority going in. As has been said many times over in this thread, the way the US military strategy sees stopping enemy CAS is not through robust IADS but through simple air superiority. Air superiority keeps the enemy CAS off the tankers' backs and it also allows the US to use CAS. That's the way our military strategy is designed. 

 

You can make all sorts of assumptions about Linebacker funding or lack of it, but quite simply it gets cut because the Avenger can do the same job and it is a lot cheaper and we really don't need anything anything better. 

 

The Stinger is actually quite capable at lethally engaging aircraft, and quite frankly I'm getting tired of my CMBS Stingers firing but never hitting anything. But that's a topic for another thread.

 

Look at how current & near future systems are funded and deployed. The US is far more concerned about theater ballistic missile defense (SCUDs, etc) than it is about ADA assets engaging CAS. That's why we have Patriot and THAADS. They are not intended to be used against aircraft although they certainly could be. They are to be used against ballistic missiles and not enemy CAS. This is because that is the job of the USAF. We have the Avenger and we have MANPAD Stingers to catch the stragglers that make it through. But we have nothing really any more potent than that providing air defense to the combat units. Sure there have been attempts to move a few of the sea-based air defense systems ashore, but I don't think they have gained much favor.

 

I think at the strategic level in our hypothetical NATO vs. Russia conflict, it would be a very real possibility that Russia would shift from losing hundreds of aircraft attempting CAS to pulling their non-nuclear theater ballistic missile arsenal out of mothballs and using it to strike targets in the rear. That's what Patriot and THAADS were designed for.

 

Nothing is a sure thing in warfare though so in our CMBS alternate version of reality, a scenario designer can come up with anything they want if they can articulate the backstory.

[LukeFF]

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.

 

Though obviously an old example, the revised strategy of the 8th Air Force in 1944 to set the P-51 escorts loose is a good illustration of this. By hunting down the Luftwaffe wherever and whenever they could be found (such as struggling to climb to altitude full laden with fuel and ammo), they ensured the threat to the B-17s was minimal.

Edited February 19, 2015 by LukeFF

[Vanir Ausf B]

Look at how current & near future systems are funded and deployed. The US is far more concerned about theater ballistic missile defense (SCUDs, etc) than it is about ADA assets engaging CAS. That's why we have Patriot and THAADS. They are not intended to be used against aircraft although they certainly could be. They are to be used against ballistic missiles and not enemy CAS. This is because that is the job of the USAF.

 

Exactly. The US has an entire branch of its armed forces dedicated to making sure US ground forces don't get bombed. The annual USAF budget is around 170 billion US dollars. That is over twice the size of Russia's entire defense budget. That doesn't even include US Marine and Naval aviation.

 

This fixation with Army SHORAD is nuts. Nobody outside of this forum views it as a major problem.

[Codename Duchess]

You fell victim to the odd leaker. The US doesn't focus on SHORAD because it rightly doesn't need to. Obviously the Russians would be a capable foe, but neither side is going to risk slow and unwieldy aircraft against their worthy opponents. Any initial ground strikes would be SEAD (crucial) or strategic in nature (bombing a bridge is much easier to plan and execute than loitering long enough to establish contact with a ground controller). Even if CAS aircraft went up, they'd drop ordnance at the first reports of enemy fighters, scrubbing the mission. No matter how badly CAS may be needed on the ground, neither air force is going to suicide fixed wing aircraft needlessly. Helos will bear the brunt of all CAS, and they will die in large numbers.

My question is when will the airfields be bombed? Presumably for political protection, Russian air force jets will operate from bases in Russia, and NATO jets from outside the Ukraine in NATO countries. It's quite the escalation for either side to strike these targets. Would air fields remain safe, or would one side eventually cave and attack?

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

 

 

Would air fields remain safe, or would one side eventually cave and attack? 

 

I think they'd be safe.  The Russians wouldn't likely be able to get aviation that deep, and using TBMs would be very risky in terms of possibly triggering some massive escalation/the French uncork a nuke or something because This Is It, and Patriot stands a good chance of shooting down that sort of missile.  NATO likely has the political will to fight in the Ukraine, but not to start a shooting war with Russia, in Russia, and no one wants to find out if Russia is serious about the whole "get on Russian soil and we're shooting nukes" stance.   

 

I think the bigger issue will be Russian artillery and long range SAMs on the Russian side of the border, and that'll be a more interesting question in if Russia would threaten retaliation for counter-battery fire, or a HARM missile through aS-300's radar.  Most NATO artillery and SAMs will be in Ukraine proper to do their job so that's less of an issue.

[LUCASWILLEN05]

Here's my issue with this:

 

Just because the Russian Air Force is not the Iraqi Air Force does not ensure they will be successful somehow as WAVES OF NEVER ENDING PAK-FAs USE LASERS TO CRUSH AMERICA.

 

No one here is claiming the hapless Russian Air Force will be handily swept from the sky over the course of 20 minutes.  What we are saying is the Russian Air Force as a smaller, less technically capable force, in the face of a larger, more experienced, more technically advanced force is not likely to be able to conduct air strikes in numbers dangerous enough to require building a dedicated ADA platform to be built.  And further, given this reality of the Russians being the high-tier threat, and not being likely to be able to penetrate the CAP without punishing losses, with the remainder of threats falling far, far, far short of even this modest threat, makes an SHORAD vehicle a huge waste of money and time.

 

 

I want you to take that attitude to any other job, and not get laughed at.

 

YOU ARE A DOCTOR AND A PRODUCT OF THE MEDICAL INSTITUTION.  I WILL CURE THIS WITH THE MAGIC OF GEMS BECAUSE I READ IT IN A BOOK AND I HAVE PLAYED VIRTUAL SURGEON SEVERAL TIMES GOOD SIR

 

Or possibly:

 

I have built many model planes, and you sir, are a product of the engineering insitution and do not understand the genius of a jet powered biplane.  I've read books, and I own all the microsoft flight simulators.

 

 

The amount of effort and time spent on those IADS networks, vs the ability of them to stop the bombing force was pretty far out of proportion.  They made the attack uncomfortable, and sometimes lethal for individual planes, but like all passive defenses they could be reduced (and destroyed in the case of Yom Kippur and Iraqi in 1991) or simply are unable to inflict enough damage on the attacker to preclude continued attack (again, SAMS or not, Hanoi had a lot of bombs in the weather forecast, shooting down one or two bombers a night didn't effect that).

 

But I'm glad you brought up Vietnam!  Please explain to me how the helpless Americans were not bombed into submission by the NVAF despite a lack of US ADA (well, Dusters aside but they had other jobs)?

 

 

Camouflage.  Taking halts in locations with concealment.  Hoping the USAF is doing its job.  If Stinger teams are attached to the Company locating them in the most advantageous terrain.   In terms of being a tank/infantry system, your best defense is the enemy doesn't see you.  If it's a leaker SU-27 being chased by F-22s it's likely not going to live long enough to take the time to find me from 20,000 feet, or acquire me if he's bobbing up and over hill masses.

 

This would even be true with a more robust ADA asset like a Linebacker.  I don't want planes to see me.  They will see me if I pop off missiles  or put rounds in the air though, which could bring the harm my way.  Stinger, or even older systems like Vulcan and Chaparral are low enough p/k that unless I am 100% in danger, enemy is coming for us, I'm not going to draw attention to us.  

 

If we're talking about helicopters same drill, unless they're coming my way/obviously are attacking my position. If that's the case we'll volley fire MPAT, a kill is doubtful (especially given the limited elevation of a tank gun) but the amount of crap that'll put in the air runs a good odd at causing a mission kill, or strongly encouraging the enemy to leave.  Even sabot wouldn't be a bad choice, it's short shot to hit time makes it attractive, and the FCS can hack a helicopter at speed.  

 

If the helicopter is on approach and outside the engagement window of the tank gun, massed .50 cal fire will do in a pinch, again the FCS on the CROW can hack if.  If we've got SLAP loaded it'll ruin faces pretty well, but even standard .50 cal will do a lot of damage if massed on a helicopter (while Hinds and the like are armored against that sort of weapon in places, the fourteen or so of those coming off the company is enough to knock out weapons, shred rotors, brown pilot's pants, and generally encourage them to leave right now.

 

But otherwise the best thing for a ground unit to do is stay out of sight, out of mind, and report REDAIR to higher and hope you're about to make a USAF Pilot's day.  

 

Re Vietnam The US lost quite a few planes over North Vietnam during the strategig bombing campigns. During OperatioN Rolling Thunder heUSAF lost some 184 aircraft IN 1968 ALONE over North Vietnam many to SAMS but 22% to Migs. The USAF was supposed to be tthe best in the world then too I understand

 

Anyway, getting back to tactical and game issues. Yes, camouflage and cocealment will work well - particulrly when you are on the defensive. But the "Sir"orders youto counter attack and t some extet you have to come out of the woods t play as it were. Although naturally you would be using as much conceling terrain as  possible. Which makes perfect sens even to a civvie like me  But at soome point you will have to move through open terrain. A this point I am going to need my air defence.

 

So how, in that situation do I best deploy my air defence. Clearly the principle of Fire and Movement stll aplies as it does to anything else. But given the limitations of my Air Defence vehicles (Stinger crews have to dismount) clear lines of sight are needed. Which means wooded areas arre unsuitable. But at the same time they need to be cncealed from the enemy. What other issues would you e taking into account whwen working with this type of weapon system or have I about covered it?

Edited February 19, 2015 by LUCASWILLEN05

[LUCASWILLEN05]

I think they'd be safe.  The Russians wouldn't likely be able to get aviation that deep, and using TBMs would be very risky in terms of possibly triggering some massive escalation/the French uncork a nuke or something because This Is It, and Patriot stands a good chance of shooting down that sort of missile.  NATO likely has the political will to fight in the Ukraine, but not to start a shooting war with Russia, in Russia, and no one wants to find out if Russia is serious about the whole "get on Russian soil and we're shooting nukes" stance.   

 

I think the bigger issue will be Russian artillery and long range SAMs on the Russian side of the border, and that'll be a more interesting question in if Russia would threaten retaliation for counter-battery fire, or a HARM missile through aS-300's radar.  Most NATO artillery and SAMs will be in Ukraine proper to do their job so that's less of an issue.

 

Safe eventually. Once the USAF wins the air superiority battle. Unfortuneatly this may not happen right away. Re SSMs I recall somehing about 3rd Infantry Division HQ being hit by one during the final days of the Iraq War. You are not 100% safe and are unlikely ever to be so. (0 or 95% safe. Eventually, probably yes.

[apd1004]

Safe eventually. Once the USAF wins the air superiority battle. Unfortuneatly this may not happen right away. Re SSMs I recall somehing about 3rd Infantry Division HQ being hit by one during the final days of the Iraq War. You are not 100% safe and are unlikely ever to be so. (0 or 95% safe. Eventually, probably yes.

I think you are correct in saying that this may not happen right away. Given the 3-month time frame of our CMBS campaign, it may never get beyond the "contested" state that an earlier poster mentioned, hence more reason to create CMBS scenarios with zero to very scarce air support, including UAS's (the term UAV is becoming obsolete in US military terminology). This is because since the 1990's Russia has put a lot of resources into defeating the US ability to wage an overwhelming air campaign. I think it is possible to overcome, but it won't be as easy as 1991.

 

"Shock and Awe" in 1991 definitely shocked and awed the Russians because all of the time, money, and effort they put into their IADS was easily defeated by the US air campaign against Iraq which had a fairly robust Russian-built densely overlapping complex IADS the day before the air campaign started. The combination of PGM, stealth, and ISR capabilities of mainly the US with a little UK thrown in quickly defeated the Iraqi IADS which in turn allowed US aircraft to freely roam the skies and rain death and destruction on the Iraqi ground forces. In our CMBS scenario this may not happen yet by August because the Russians have developed several systems to counter PGM, stealth, and ISR. The question is how effective will they be but that is definitely behind the scenes as far as CMBS is concerned. Scenario designers do need to keep it in mind even though there isn't word one of the air campaign mentioned in our CMBS scenario backstory (on purpose).

 

Getting back to the OP reference US air defense capability, I'll say it again - I think the Stinger in CMBS is broken. I'm playing First Clash and about 15 minutes into the scenario a Russian helicopter appears. My Stinger team launched its entire inventory of 6 missiles at it and not one hit. In fact, I have yet to see a Stinger hit anything in my experience with CMBS so far. Not necessarily looking for a kill here, just a break off or a missile going ballistic due to breaking the lock by the evading platform. The AT-6 Spiral gunner has to keep crosshairs on target and I can't imagine him being able or willing to do that with a Stinger inbound. Even the AT-9 and Vikhr are still beam riders and I think an evading helicopter may not be able to keep the beam on target.

[LUCASWILLEN05]

I think you are correct in saying that this may not happen right away. Given the 3-month time frame of our CMBS campaign, it may never get beyond the "contested" state that an earlier poster mentioned, hence more reason to create CMBS scenarios with zero to very scarce air support, including UAS's (the term UAV is becoming obsolete in US military terminology). This is because since the 1990's Russia has put a lot of resources into defeating the US ability to wage an overwhelming air campaign. I think it is possible to overcome, but it won't be as easy as 1991.

 

"Shock and Awe" in 1991 definitely shocked and awed the Russians because all of the time, money, and effort they put into their IADS was easily defeated by the US air campaign against Iraq which had a fairly robust Russian-built densely overlapping complex IADS the day before the air campaign started. The combination of PGM, stealth, and ISR capabilities of mainly the US with a little UK thrown in quickly defeated the Iraqi IADS which in turn allowed US aircraft to freely roam the skies and rain death and destruction on the Iraqi ground forces. In our CMBS scenario this may not happen yet by August because the Russians have developed several systems to counter PGM, stealth, and ISR. The question is how effective will they be but that is definitely behind the scenes as far as CMBS is concerned. Scenario designers do need to keep it in mind even though there isn't word one of the air campaign mentioned in our CMBS scenario backstory (on purpose).

 

Getting back to the OP reference US air defense capability, I'll say it again - I think the Stinger in CMBS is broken. I'm playing First Clash and about 15 minutes into the scenario a Russian helicopter appears. My Stinger team launched its entire inventory of 6 missiles at it and not one hit. In fact, I have yet to see a Stinger hit anything in my experience with CMBS so far. Not necessarily looking for a kill here, just a break off or a missile going ballistic due to breaking the lock by the evading platform. The AT-6 Spiral gunner has to keep crosshairs on target and I can't imagine him being able or willing to do that with a Stinger inbound. Even the AT-9 and Vikhr are still beam riders and I think an evading helicopter may not be able to keep the beam on target.

 

I don't know whether there is a probl;em with the stinger or not. I have definately shot down Russian fixed wing and helicopters wih it. But, to be fair I have not looked at it quite as closely as you have.

 

Regardig the air campaign I suspect it might be 4 - 6 weeks before the USAF relly starts to wi he air bttle given the circumsances. Tw or threeweeks after that we might expect air dominance and significant progress aganst the Russin air defence sytems. By mid/late August he Russian air defence will likely still be there bu significantlyatrited. By this point the Russian airfrce will likely be largely destroyed as an effective force although still capable of mouting an occasional effective air attack - but NATO should be able to handle that with ease.

 

It is however those opening days and weeks of the conflict that US tactical air defece might find hard.

[Apocal]

"Shock and Awe" in 1991 definitely shocked and awed the Russians because all of the time, money, and effort they put into their IADS was easily defeated by the US air campaign against Iraq which had a fairly robust Russian-built densely overlapping complex IADS the day before the air campaign started.

 

KARI was French-designed and built.

[Codename Duchess]

Lucas, no one is going to be doing fixed wing CAS until there is air superiority. I repeat, you will not see fixed wing aircraft on CAS missions in the first weeks of conflict. That's just not how you employ your assets wisely. It would be literal suicide missions. Rotory wing yes, but those are susceptible to Stinger so there's no gap there.

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

 

 

Re Vietnam The US lost quite a few planes over North Vietnam during the strategig bombing campigns. During OperatioN Rolling Thunder heUSAF lost some 184 aircraft IN 1968 ALONE over North Vietnam many to SAMS but 22% to Migs. The USAF was supposed to be tthe best in the world then too I understand 

 

The point isn't how many USAF planes were lost over North Vietnam, the question is why, given the total absence of tactical or strategic ADA (again, minus obsolete M42 type platforms being used as anti-infantry weapons) in South Vietnam, did the North Vietnamese not simply bomb the US out of the war.  By your statements the lack of this air defense should have been decisive.  They could have been sinking US ships left and right, and taking out whole companies at once if only they'd done so by your assertions.  

 

 

 

Re SSMs I recall somehing about 3rd Infantry Division HQ being hit by one during the final days of the Iraq War. You are not 100% safe and are unlikely ever to be so. (0 or 95% safe. Eventually, probably yes. 

 

SSMish, not TBM.  The 9K52 type rocket that hit in Iraq was effectively just rocket artillery. It has a range of something like 43 miles.  Anything coming from Russia to NATO bases outside of the Ukraine (which was the question asked) would have to be a much larger system, or some matter of cruise missile.  Additionally again, in talking about air bases, that's exactly the sort of thing that's going to receive a PATRIOT battery to defend it.

 

So an errant FROG landing somewhere near US forces?  Wouldn't rule it out, although the CEP is something crazy.  A Scarab or Scud type weapon flying towards Poland?  That's doubtful. 

[LUCASWILLEN05]

Lucas, no one is going to be doing fixed wing CAS until there is air superiority. I repeat, you will not see fixed wing aircraft on CAS missions in the first weeks of conflict. That's just not how you employ your assets wisely. It would be literal suicide missions. Rotory wing yes, but those are susceptible to Stinger so there's no gap there.

 

Dealing in absolutes here. Rather you might say fixed wing CAS will not be considered a priority. The "ground pounders" will be needing it!

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

 

 

Dealing in absolutes here. Rather you might say fixed wing CAS will not be considered a priority. The "ground pounders" will be needing it!

 

If it's a hole in the ground in July, means you can't do anything with it in August, or it's not something you can threaten Estonia with later.

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

 

 

I think this is something Battlefront needs to address. ADA vs Helicopter needs a defiant "re balancing" in order to be realistic, AH-64s specifically are way way too vulnerable. Adding the option to make fast jets immune to ADA during scenario creation is also sorely needed. 

 

Pardon the double tap, but I missed a not SHORAD silliness post that was worth talking about.

 

I agree right now it's very "if any ADA piece is in the game, you better park the planes until further notice."  As a stupid idea:

 

Have a new set of strike options.  Like how you set "heavy medium or light" you'd have another tab that would be something like "close" or "standoff" 

 

Close is what happens now.  The platform closes to attack and destroy things and enters the ADA envelope.  

 

Standoff is the platform launching weapons from outside of MANPAD range.  For rotary wing, only helicopters with standoff type weapons (like the radar guided Hellfires) can do this, and weapons like cannons or rockets will not be employed.  They also can no longer self spot (picture it that they don't see enough of the battlefield to engage targets without someone being able to talk them onto it)  Fixed wing is similar, "dumb" weapons are not employed, missiles and guided bombs only (assuming idiots loop type attacks for the bombs).  Fixed wing will only do point targets (again, at standoff they're going to struggle to spot a tank motoring around, they need the spotter to find the target, and likely designate or feed GPS coordinates to them).

 

In standoff, MANPADS would simply be useless.  Vehicle ADA (missiles only) would engage at a much reduced efficiency.

 

The counter to this would be something like the EW level.  There'd be an "air threat" level, with settings like "Blue Air Dominance, Blue Air Superiority, Air Parity, Red Air Superiority, Red Air Dominance" to simulate the fighter and larger SAM effects.  Dominance is basically one side owns the sky and can fly whereever it wants.  Superiority means the side that holds it has an advantage, but the other side can still push out strikes and attacks occasionally.  Parity means the battle is ongoing and it's no man's sky.

 

The effects on air strikes would be one of the following: 

 

Successful Strike. Bombs away!

Evasive.  Airstrike is aborting to avoid being engaged, will be available again later.  

Engaged. Airstrike is under attack, it is no longer available for the mission as it has jettisoned munitions and is bugging out

Destroyed. Some F-22/SU-27 pilot is smiling like an idiot right now.

 

The different air threat levels would dictate which one of these was more likely.  Under Blue Air Dominance, unless a MANPAD or on map ADA piece gets a shot off, Blue Air Strikes will arrive.  Under Air superiority there's like a 10% chance of engaged, 20% chance of evasive, while under air parity it'd be 5% Destroyed, 15% Engaged, 25% Evasive, with it getting worse under the Red superiority/dominance (launching an airstrike in enemy Air Dominance should be something nuts like 20% destroyed, 30% engaged, 30% Evasive).

 

Edit: I do have to add, those numbers are just as examples. It's not like I did any more to come up with them than think for a second and ask "what sounds good?"

 

It'd allow for a more realistic Blue-Red air strike dynamic.  

Edited February 19, 2015 by panzersaurkrautwerfer

[Codename Duchess]

Dealing in absolutes here. Rather you might say fixed wing CAS will not be considered a priority. The "ground pounders" will be needing it!

My terrestrialy inclined friend here is correct. A dead jet is a useless jet. The dynamics and nature of air vs. land warfare means it's probably far easier to sneak a company of Abrams into Red Square than it is to get a 4 ship of F-16s to the Russian-Ukrainian border.

The type of CAS mission where it would be absolutely 100% necessary that the strike gets through to save ground forces is the type of mission that will get tasked a heavy SEAD and CAP escort to establish local and likely temporary air superiority for a one time strike. Any other strike will result in unacceptable losses to the aircraft and low probability of success. It just won't be worth it. The USAF already hates the CAS mission and has structured itself for the strike and interdiction missions when it has to go air to ground. (Interdiction is behind the lines attacks on enemy ground forces, like bombing troop columns - not something that happens in CM). Those types of missions will feature the heavy escort with lots of planning. My own USN, if committed, would assist in winning the air war before thinking of going air to ground. I don't want to get personal, but you have an USA tank officer (the ground pounder in need) and a USN F/A pilot (the cowardly flyboy who carries the bombs and missiles) saying how this would go down. Its worth considering.

Again, a dead plane does no one any good. A live plane can kill a Sukhoi today and tomorrow so that it can kill tanks next week when there are no more sukhois. I cannot emphasize this enough.

Edited February 19, 2015 by Codename Duchess

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

 

 

USN F/A pilot (the cowardly flyboy who carries the bombs and missiles) saying how this would go down.

 

Just as an aside, you have a mighty sweet ride.  Wouldn't trade a tank for it, but always like the F/A-18 line. 

[Codename Duchess]

Which is funny because I am addicted to Steel Beasts and all things Tank too. At a cross branch event with the Army, I spent about 3 hours talking the ear off an E-6 who was showing off his tank. He was taken quite aback by my interest as a squid. If I hadn't lucked out and gotten my dream job, I would have pursued Army armor all out.

[Pablius]

 

I agree right now it's very "if any ADA piece is in the game, you better park the planes until further notice."  As a stupid idea:

 

Have a new set of strike options.  Like how you set "heavy medium or light" you'd have another tab that would be something like "close" or "standoff" 

 

Close is what happens now.  The platform closes to attack and destroy things and enters the ADA envelope.  

 

Standoff is the platform launching weapons from outside of MANPAD range.  For rotary wing, only helicopters with standoff type weapons (like the radar guided Hellfires) can do this, and weapons like cannons or rockets will not be employed.  They also can no longer self spot (picture it that they don't see enough of the battlefield to engage targets without someone being able to talk them onto it)  Fixed wing is similar, "dumb" weapons are not employed, missiles and guided bombs only (assuming idiots loop type attacks for the bombs).  Fixed wing will only do point targets (again, at standoff they're going to struggle to spot a tank motoring around, they need the spotter to find the target, and likely designate or feed GPS coordinates to them).

 

 

 

I second the motion for standoff air mission option!!

 

I was thinking about it the other day while reading this thread after playing a couple of missions

 

It is somewhat strange it is not there in some form, given the capabilities of the systems involved and all the effort put into them to do exactly the opposite of what they do in game right now,

 

It is like giving the tanks a range limit of 1000m for no good reason other than to add suspense

[apd1004]

Ugh - Steel Beasts is kind of like the Russian tanks we've been talking about. 1990's technology living in 2015. I really wanted to like Steel Beasts and actually there is nothing to compare to it as far as being in the gunner's seat or TC's hatch. Besides the price, I couldn't get beyond the outdated graphics and the lack of AI/need to script everything if you want to make scenarios. Someday somebody will make computer trees that aren't transparent to the computer opponent.

[kaburke61]

LOL... +1 on the trees and AI in Steel Beasts!