US Anti Aircraft defences

[Nerdwing]

Same issue in DCS.  imagine trying to do NoE attacks in a helo when the AI sees clearly through trees... 

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

 

 

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. 

HA! As a high school student I spent hours playing Jane's F/A-18*, dropping dem' JDAMS on Russian ultra-nationalists.  Ultimately my poor eyesight and so-so math scores led me to realize I wasn't likely to become a pilot, but found that I still wanted to be in the military which led down its own winding road.

 

 

Re: Steel Beasts

 

It's a good training tool, but it's really built to have a trained operator building your scenarios or missions that are fairly basic exercises.  It breaks down when you approach it like its a simulator-game.

 

Which is why I'm sad, because looking back at the mid-late 90's simulators like Longbow 2 and iM1A2, those were much better sims in terms of being "playable" vs being the civilian version of CCTT.  

 

*To be fair, middle school I played iM1A2 like it was a religion.  

[jspec]

Duchess, if you're still around (and feel like answering) I was wondering about sead/dead with jdams... is that something that's a viable option?

 If positions of launchers or trucks or whathaveyou were gps mapped through satalite, recon flights, or even soldiers on the ground, wouldn't it be just as "easy" as programming a whole bunch of bombs dropping them? Or are the distances the SAMS can reach greater than the distances with which bombs can be tossed? Is there a height limit to how high you can go to drop a jdam? Just trying to think of why you always wouldn't go that route... I know there's the harm missle, but it seems like jdams would be more of a 'sure thing'.

 

I know I could probably search online for most of the answers, but as a long time aviation (and flight sim) fan it's pretty cool to be able to ask a question of an actual f/a18 pilot.

 

Not that you have to start doing a Q/A session or anything!

[Codename Duchess]

*To be fair, middle school I played iM1A2 like it was a religion.  

First computer games I ever played (this is elementary school) were Novalogic's Armored Fist 2 and F-22 Lightning II, in equal amounts.  The more I think about it, the more a whole lot of things start to make sense because of that...

 

Duchess, if you're still around (and feel like answering) I was wondering about sead/dead with jdams... is that something that's a viable option?

 If positions of launchers or trucks or whathaveyou were gps mapped through satalite, recon flights, or even soldiers on the ground, wouldn't it be just as "easy" as programming a whole bunch of bombs dropping them? Or are the distances the SAMS can reach greater than the distances with which bombs can be tossed? Is there a height limit to how high you can go to drop a jdam? Just trying to think of why you always wouldn't go that route... I know there's the harm missle, but it seems like jdams would be more of a 'sure thing'.

 

I know I could probably search online for most of the answers, but as a long time aviation (and flight sim) fan it's pretty cool to be able to ask a question of an actual f/a18 pilot.

 

Not that you have to start doing a Q/A session or anything!

Totally viable, but it's very context dependent.  You'd have two options, either high altitude to stay above the engagement envelope, or a low "toss."  With a high altitude engagement, any sort of SHORAD isn't going to reach you.  Even the missiles on Tunguska or the SA-13 won't be able to touch you.  Even the Pantsir missiles would be unlikely to reach you at 30k feet.  The problem then becomes your visibility to Strategic SAMs (or SA-11/SA-15 style systems) so you need a plan to deal with those.  A LGB is better against mobile targets because it can adjust on the move, whereas your non GBU-54 (Laser JDAM) goes off coordinates.  You can easily find and guide a target from altitude with a pod, and if not then there are multiple ways someone on the ground could guide the bomb in.  It doesn't even need to be a guided bomb really, air defenses and especially their sensors are very fragile (even on armored chassis) so a near miss with a non-guided bomb will still likely knock that system out, at least for a while.  CBUs are even better because only one bomblet needs to hit to pretty much gaurantee a mission-kill.

A low level approach with a toss is the other option.  A guided bomb makes this very effective in terms of accuracy, and even un-guided bombs can still hit accurately thanks to the computer systems on the aircraft.  This let's you approach from low (nominally beneath Strategic SAM engagement envelopes) and thus sneakier, but simple physics will tell you that you get better range dropping from altitude.  There's a good chance of being within missile range of most SHORAD systems (not so much MANPADS), so this is best done in a manner where you can dive back behind cover.  You will also need someone else (plane or otherwise) to designate the target if you're using lasers. 

As you can see, there are tradeoffs between the two methods, and either one still leaves you at risk.  Bombs play by the rules of physics, so you can only get so much range out of them and you're going to be going against a missile that is attempting to burn up to your altitude.  It really just depends there.  The better solution is HARM (for Radar) or Mavericks.  There are other standoff weapons too.  Much better standoff range for SHORAD systems, and both are more of a "sure thing" as you put it due to their accuracy, warhead, and range. 

Edited February 20, 2015 by Codename Duchess

[apd1004]

Same issue in DCS.  imagine trying to do NoE attacks in a helo when the AI sees clearly through trees... 

I had such high hopes for DCS World to get into a tank but when you get down to the ground (be it in a helo or a tank) you can definitely tell the graphics were designed for a flight sim. Ground vehicles were barely more than notional when they finally made some of them playable, at least back in the beginning. Maybe it's better now. The graphics a year and a half ago anyway were meant to be viewed more for when you would be at some sort of altitude or at least flying over it fast enough to not smell the roses. I played Blackshark for a while when it first came out and later I picked up the Thrustmaster HOTAS rig for A-10, but the learning curve on both was so steep just to get the engines started that I stopped playing both. 

 

HA! As a high school student I spent hours playing Jane's F/A-18*, dropping dem' JDAMS on Russian ultra-nationalists.  Ultimately my poor eyesight and so-so math scores led me to realize I wasn't likely to become a pilot, but found that I still wanted to be in the military which led down its own winding road.

 

 

Re: Steel Beasts

 

It's a good training tool, but it's really built to have a trained operator building your scenarios or missions that are fairly basic exercises.  It breaks down when you approach it like its a simulator-game.

 

Which is why I'm sad, because looking back at the mid-late 90's simulators like Longbow 2 and iM1A2, those were much better sims in terms of being "playable" vs being the civilian version of CCTT.  

 

*To be fair, middle school I played iM1A2 like it was a religion.  

Feeling a little old now. When Longbow 2 & iM1A2 came out I was a 1LT tank company XO. I played the heck out of Longbow 2, not so much iM1A2. There was something about iM1A2 that rubbed me wrong and I can't remember what it was. The first version of Steel Beasts came out just a couple years later and I put way more time into that than I did iM1A2.

 

I think we've totally hijacked this thread by now.

[jspec]

Cool, thanks for writing!

 

Guess I was thinking that gps would be a little more of a 'magic bullet' than it is... thought maybe if you were high enough, the bomb could travel far enough.  Makes sense though that a harm or maverick would be the way to go, range wise, as it does have a rocket attached to it after all.

[Pablius]

So, let´s go full off topic...

 

Did someone play Tornado in the early 90s? I think my father gave it to me for the Amiga 500 or one of my earlier PCs, It had one of the best mission planners I´ve seen in a simulator, that game was very unforgiven, it forced you to plan the mission for much more time than it took to actually fly it

 

I stopped with DCS at the second Flanker game, good times, bought A-10 but never got around to play it, my HOTAS is collecting dust somewhere, too much time consuming...

 

I don´t think I have time and energy for a jet simulator anymore, unless someone makes one about the A-4 with nothing more than dumb bombs and no radar

[Apocal]

So, let´s go full off topic...

 

Did someone play Tornado in the early 90s? I think my father gave it to me for the Amiga 500 or one of my earlier PCs, It had one of the best mission planners I´ve seen in a simulator, that game was very unforgiven, it forced you to plan the mission for much more time than it took to actually fly it

 

I played Tornado and yes, it was the hands down best mission planner I've ever seen in a game. I loved planning runway strikes with JP223s, setting up the initial point just right for a good attack run and then streaking overhead at nearly Mach 1, cratering the hell out of the field. That consumed an embarrassing amount of my youth and vigor.

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

 

 

I think we've totally hijacked this thread by now.

 

Was it going anywhere good though?

 

 

 

 When Longbow 2 & iM1A2 came out I was a 1LT tank company XO

 

Christ.  Most game forums I feel like a dinosaur.  This is the one forum I've run into where there's more than a few posters I have to address as "sir" if I ran into them offline.

 

 

 

The first version of Steel Beasts came out just a couple years later and I put way more time into that than I did iM1A2.

 

To be fair, at that point in time I wouldn't have known what was authentic or not, I just knew tanking was cool, and it was less fruity than Mechwarrior (and as much as I liked Mechwarrior, the setting was something that always annoyed me deeply).  Roaming through Iran or Bosnia turning T-72s inside out was pretty awesome.

 

On the other hand, ripplefire Hellfires is pretty much as close to an apocalyptic event as a flight simulator will give you, so Longbow 2 was good for that much.  

 

Re: Sims in general

 

I lack the patience for them these days.  Especially flight sims with all the fiddly physics and systems.  What I liked about the old Janes sims was you could adjust how real intense the simulator was going to be, so if you wanted Firehawks: The Game, Longbow would do it for you, or the other way around.

 

That's also the bigger gripe I had with Steel Beasts.  If I just wanted a tool for my LTs to practice things in it, it felt like they had to genuinely know what they're doing with both tanks and the sim, while stuff like Combat mission you need a little guidance, but something straight forward like platoon vs platoon movement to contact is pretty intuitive once you know what the buttons mean.  (Which is why I shared CMSF with thems all)  If I could have turned the realism down more on Steel Beasts to focus more on the "higher" level stuff, I'd oddly have gotten more training value out of it.

 

At least that's how I remember it.  Honestly haven't touched it in years. 

[Pablius]

I played Tornado and yes, it was the hands down best mission planner I've ever seen in a game. I loved planning runway strikes with JP223s, setting up the initial point just right for a good attack run and then streaking overhead at nearly Mach 1, cratering the hell out of the field. That consumed an embarrassing amount of my youth and vigor.

 

 

YES! Runway strikes!...I honestly don´t know how anyone has the nerves to do that kind of mission in real life...I´m not sure if that kind of deep strike, ultra fast, low altitude thing is doable anymore in a modern setting, given all the sensors and and MANPADS going around, is someone still training for that? My sincere condolences

 

And also, never managed to do a proper loft bombing...and anyone that says it is possible is lying! 

[Codename Duchess]

Cool, thanks for writing!

 

Guess I was thinking that gps would be a little more of a 'magic bullet' than it is... thought maybe if you were high enough, the bomb could travel far enough.  Makes sense though that a harm or maverick would be the way to go, range wise, as it does have a rocket attached to it after all.

GPS guided bombs are great, they are very accurate (also there's a new JDAM with a home on jam setting, which is awesome).  The thing is it's a guidance system, has nothing to do with range or propulsion.  A bomb falling ballistic doesn't care how or if it is guided, it just falls.  So if you're at 40k feet travelling at 500 knots, then it will cover a lot of horizontal distance (5-10 miles or so).  Projectile motion equations will give you a ballpark idea, neglecting the drag on the bomb and terminal velocity.  Meanwhile a missile from the ground has to overcome gravity so it does not have a lot of energy by the time it reaches altitude. 

But yeah, you want standoff for obvious reasons.  That said, your typical SEAD/DEAD loadout is HARMs + Cluster bombs for reasons previously stated.

[jspec]

Cool, thanks, that totally makes sense. You mentioned SA-11/15's earlier, I've always thought those things must be particularly terrifying (and they've been blowing me up in most of my simming life since the late 90s).

Would it still have to be aviation that went after those nowadays? I'm guessing you could use cruise missles, If they were available, but if not.... stealth?

Guess I'm wondering if they're as scary as they seem, basically!

Thanks

[apd1004]

GPS guided bombs are great, they are very accurate (also there's a new JDAM with a home on jam setting, which is awesome).  The thing is it's a guidance system, has nothing to do with range or propulsion.  A bomb falling ballistic doesn't care how or if it is guided, it just falls.  So if you're at 40k feet travelling at 500 knots, then it will cover a lot of horizontal distance (5-10 miles or so).  Projectile motion equations will give you a ballpark idea, neglecting the drag on the bomb and terminal velocity.  Meanwhile a missile from the ground has to overcome gravity so it does not have a lot of energy by the time it reaches altitude. 

But yeah, you want standoff for obvious reasons.  That said, your typical SEAD/DEAD loadout is HARMs + Cluster bombs for reasons previously stated.

More recently but before CMBS came out, I've been playing around with Command: Modern Air & Naval Operations to game out just those types of encounters. Not much in the way of graphics but the realism is definitely there. It only takes a few minutes to set up a simple scenario to test out different systems and tactics. The database of platforms, weapons, and sensors is incredible.

[apd1004]

Cool, thanks, that totally makes sense. You mentioned SA-11/15's earlier, I've always thought those things must be particularly terrifying (and they've been blowing me up in most of my simming life since the late 90s).

Would it still have to be aviation that went after those nowadays? I'm guessing you could use cruise missles, If they were available, but if not.... stealth?

Guess I'm wondering if they're as scary as they seem, basically!

Thanks

There are a lot of professionally written articles on how Russia has invested a lot of time, money, and effort in upgraded and new AD systems to counter western (read that as US primarily) capability in ISR, Stealth, and PGM. Russia actually has some very capable systems for dealing with those 3 concepts which US military strategy relies upon. Many of their newer systems have impressive shoot-n-scoot capability that didn't exist back in 1991 when most of their longer range systems were almost permanent terrain features. Fortunately Russia isn't swimming in cash these days so I would imagine the more capable systems are not forming an impenetrable barrier from the Barents Sea to the Black Sea and will instead be used in most likely engagement areas. Still, I think we have the capability to overcome but it definitely won't be a repeat of 1991 Iraq. 

[silent one]

Dont know if it got said earlier in the thread. The fact were fighting on Russian border makes a difference. We cant strike their airfields as that starts WW3 . They will probably be shooting up the Ukrainian fields. The allies would be limited as to which airfields they can use as some of the NATO countries will refuse use of their fields or airspaces. Such as Turkey  has done in the past. So there would be an element of Russia fighting at full weight with a  full sam umbrella. And some of their stuff is very good like SA10. The allies with one hand behind their back. Thin on the ground and hampered by political issues.  No ones wanting WW3 to start so this isnt a " normal" US vs third rate force scenario.

Edited February 21, 2015 by silent one

[Codename Duchess]

Have CMANO, love it. 

Re: SA-11/SA-15.  They're good, but need to be used smart.  SA-15 is more of a SHORAD system though.  HARM is your friend for SA-11.

Re: SA-10.  A good but not perfect system.  HARM from high altitude will out range it.  Newer Systems (SA-21) are scarier, but they are much fewer in number and new versions of HARM were designed with it in mind.  Combined with EA-18G support, it won't be the slaughter you expect it to be of NATO pigdog planes.  You are correct in that we could not target Russian airfields, but then NATO would just fly from airfields in NATO countries, so Russia couldn't strike those either for the exact same reasons.  NATO also has its own very capable SAM umbrella with Patriot.

Edited February 21, 2015 by Codename Duchess

[jspec]

Intersting, thanks!

[John Kettler]

This thread, methinks, very much needs to be put back on the track. Am not going to attempt to respond by individuals, so am going to address this by specific issues.

Yom Kippur War IADs effectiveness

 

IAF CAS losses were so severe vs Egypt for days that Israel terminated them altogether. They didn't resume until IDF tanks, which had crossed the Suez Canal, drove into the SAM zones and systematically shot up the SA-2/3/6 SAMs and dense AAA, of which the most notable AAA was the "airplane eater" ZSU-23/4. DEAD Israeli style. Against Syria, the story was much the same, but in both cases, Israeli CAS was effectively out of the war until the SAM problem was addressed, of which the pacing element (and eye waterer to defense types in the US and) was the lethality of the highly agile, mobile SA-6, a weapon against which the IAF had no ECM capability whatsoever. None. The SAMs were sufficiently deadly to force IAF planes to fly low, placing them in the deadly embrace of radar directed AAA, not to mention a plethora of SA-7s. The US provided Israel with as many as 40 F-4s and definitely 46 A-4s as replacements for terrible air losses. What's not generally known is that the US provided Israel with numerous complete tail end assemblies for A-4s. Why? The planes were eating SA-7s, but barely getting back home. Spare part planners never envisioned such a situation, so the IAF suffered major virtual attrition as a result. The IAF started the war with 440 combat planes and lost, depending on which numbers are used, 107-387, but I don't know offhand whether the US supplied additional planes over attrition during the resupply effort.

 

Given the above, I'm having real problems signing up for the "lessons of the Yom Kippur War." Likewise, I'm having similar problems with GW I. There were other factors at work other than those enumerated including: precision destruction of a key Iraqi air surveillance radar, the removal of which allowed the entry of the Stealth fighters and more visible friends. Inter alia, this resulted in the pinpoint destruction of the key Syrian AD HQ, spectacularly shown time and again on strike vid broadcast worldwide. Even in unbroken state, the IADS had very little capability vs Tomahawks which are, many don't realize, pretty stealthy in their own right, let alone when whizzing down the boulevard so low details on the weapons were clearly visible. This isn't the famous footage, but it gets the idea across.

 

The US went into GW I with not merely with superlative intel on Iraq's IADS, it went into battle with a direct conduit right into the IADS situation center, thanks to a physical hack into the fiber optic trunk line from the front, a hack put into place by a brilliant US SpecOps mission. Reportedly, the US was able to show, or not show, IADS HQ whatever it desired, but the hack is believed to have been used as a generator of enormous numbers of false targets. I firmly believe it's dangerous to draw sweeping conclusions without a fundamental understanding of what was going on to begin with. I recall the mighty MOD himself came out from Russia with his experts to figure exactly this out. One such insight was a demand for a weapon capable of downing a HARM attacking a defending SAM site. Pantsir, anyone? Tunguska itself has substantial capabilities vs things like GBU-15, LGBs, JDAM, JSOW and Tomahawks.

 

Now, let's look at the Vietnam War, shall we? It's fashionable to deride NVN's IADS as ineffective. This is based on another faulty premise. That premise is that the aggregate performance figures reflect how the national IADS performed historically throughout. Not the case. What you're seeing are the effects of a lot of really bad outcomes late in an otherwise impressive career.  When the US first ran into the SA-2, the SA-2 was killing 0.5 planes per engagement. 0.5! Indeed, there were several cases of two planes downed in one shot. What broke the back of the NVN IADS was a masterful CIA op called HA/BRINK or HABRINK. What was that? The CIA slipped people into Indonesia's SA-2 warehouses and obtained the relevant guidance link frequencies, allowing the US to pretty effectively jam the SA-2. Why Indonesia? The Indonesian SA-2s were identical to the NVN's SA-2s! Sure, evasive maneuvering, Wild Weasel, Iron Hand played their part, but HA/BRINK was what undid the IADs as far as SAM coverage. By late in the war, Linebacker II, jamming, better tactics, SEAD and other means had so degraded and cowed the SAMs that they were blind launching (no radar at all, optical direction only)  dozens of SAMs at once, and that's why the overall numbers look so bleak. That wasn't the case through much of the air war over NVN and the DMZ. We lost a family friend and his WSO to an SA-2 over the DMZ. It came out of the clouds below, so they had no chance to see the launch and evade. Boom!  Two wall entries on the Vietnam Memorial.

 

For a more informed view of Russian SAM operational effectiveness than what I've seen in this thread, please see Carlo Kopp's analysis here. Kopp has some scathing things to say about how the Arabs not only fundamentally disregarded a throughly thought out Russian doctrine, but did some things which would've been comedic had they not been so hurtful to the using force! Suggest interested parties also look at what specific threats the newer generation SAMs were designed to defeat, what their tactical-technical characteristics are and how that applies to the ability to detect, localize, engage and kill them. Makes rather sobering reading. A Serbian captain with his ancient SA-6 unit not only survived a major SEAD/DEAD campaign, but also cost the US the stunning loss of an F-117, damage to a second one and an F-16.

 

As a longtime student of military history and a former defense professional, I deem it folly to expect the USAF to be able to so thoroughly control the skies that Russian CAS and similar can't operate. US AAA threat is risible, so there's no real dense AAG penalty for operating in the weeds to make it really hard vs both fighters and Patriot to engage it, and SU-25s have survived hits by things much worse than MANPADS. Russia's not going to sit idly by and let the US/NATO gin up its air power before striking, so the force ratios, for a time, at least, are not going to be pretty. Contrary to popular opinion, the AWACS supply is quite limited, and people need to remember that these vital birds can stay aloft only so long before they have to be replaced to keep a given area in coverage. The harder they're flown, the less reliable they become, and the worse the even more critical highly trained control crews perform. Tired radar operators miss things. That. of course, presumes the plane ever gets airborne to begin with, A single Russian sniper armed with, say, an OSV 12.7 mm rifle, could ruin NATO's day at places like Geilenkirchen, which when last seen, had a whole 5 E-3As. It's even worse with JSTARS, where there are but a handful of planes in total.

 

And this discussion is without taking into account Russian missile hard kill systems or jamming. Put it this way, for every long range sensor we deployed, the Russians deployed countermeasures. Jammers vs the E-3A, the TR-1's SAR, JSTARs. I used to have some SECRET diagrams of the E-3A radar display under jamming. Thanks to steerable antenna nulls, the system performed very well in the face of one or two jammers, but after that things progressively fell apart. It was entirely possible to jam the E-3A so effectively that entire (pizza slice wide) sectors were blind. Additionally, the more jamming energy received, the shorter detection range becomes, totally compromising the vast volumetric region a Sentry ordinarily controls. This allows even crude Stealth weapons a veritable free ride through the defenses.

 

If memory serves, the wartime scenario over West Germany envisioned only two E-3As up, covering the entire region. What happens if one doesn't show up, is shot down or is jammed so effectively it can't do its job? How many would likely be available to support ops in Ukraine, and how much coverage, even best case, would be lost just to keep things like S-300PMU and S-400 from simply devouring them? The Russians also have the Il-76 MAINSTAY, their Gen 2 AWACS. Nor, as a look at page 3, #46 in that thread will show, is that by any means the limits of what's going to be faced. The Russians are building a combined function aircraft able to handle everything but undersea warfare from an AWACS perspective. I'd argue that Russian force effectiveness will be greatly enhanced by even the vanilla MAINSTAY of the Cold War period, never mind what it's evolved into since. Patriot will assuredly be a key Spetsnaz target, and if it goes down, there's no way the Air Force can handle the flood which would ensue. SAMs are 24/7 systems, but planes, even with in-flight refueling, have to go home sooner or later. There is no in-flight replenishment of munitions, LRUs or crews. And who's to say that the planes keeping the Russians away in one place won't suddenly be retasked elsewhere, leaving the poor ground force commander in the denuded zone in a Heinz factory sized pickle?!

 

What are the MCRs (Mission Capable Rates) for the F-22A under high sortie conditions?  We already know the F-35 is compromised practically across the board when it comes to just about every combat metric, so why should MCR  or sortie generation rate be any better? It'll probably break a lot, not least because it'll be anything but a mature system. We know how those tend to be. As a mature system, the F-14 Tomcat was running ~65% MCR. This meant a two-carrier CVBG could use only one CVN on a given day for strike--because the other could do nothing but conduct FAD to keep both alive! Doubtless the numbers these days are better, bit I think they nicely illustrate the main issue. Complex things, and the F-35 is super complex and broken to start, are iffy at best to depend upon. The more you stress a complicated system, the faster it breaks, not necessarily in ways anticipated, either. Given this incredibly important issue, does it really make sense to make campaign success dependent on breaking the Russian Air Force via aerial combat, as seems to be the general expectation?

 

I don't have the latest numbers and all the tech specs for what I fervently hope are upgrades from what I knew of US capabilities, but I do know the overall situation should give serious pause to US/NATO planners, operations and combat personnel. There is a strong case to be made for a real integrated US tactical air defense a la Russe or similar. I close with a cautionary tale from my Hughes AIM-54 Phoenix days.

 

The FAD (Fleet Air Defense) Section Head vs His Boss, the Operations Analysis Department Manager.

 

My section head, Bill Knight, ran OPFOR--Tu-22M BACKFIRE & SOJs (Stand Off Jammers); his boss, Dave Spencer, had the FAD for a BLUFOR CVBG (carrier battle group). Site of battle? Navy tactical simulator in Monterey, California. Each side had its own war room, and there was a separate Control room where all was known. The stakes? A good bottle of wine and gloating rights on Monday. Event was part of a threat conference the weekend immediately before Monday.

 

OPFOR objective:

 

Penetrate FAD screen and launch long range Mach 3+ AS-4 KITCHEN ASCMs to hit and destroy CVNs (in the days before AEGIS was deployed)

 

BLUFOR objective

 

Use CAP and DLI (Deck Launched Interceptors) to destroy OPFOR before it can reach the missile release line.

 

Execution: BLUFOR

 

BLUFOR radar detects jam strobes on expected threat axis and gleefully commits both CAP and available DLI to attack OPFOR. Once in range, and operating in HOJ (Home ON Jam) mode, salvos of Tomcat launched Phoenix missiles kill the jammers, clearing the radar scopes. Dave Spencer exults, thinking he has destroyed the attackers and won a crushing victory.

 

Execution: OPFOR

 

Bill Knight fully anticipates BLUFOR commander's battle plan and uses it to destroy him. OPFOR demonstrates with SOJs, getting exactly the response he anticipated, but sends the actual striking force, without SOJs, around to the back door, conducting completely unhindered AS-4 missile attacks. The SOJs and crews blown to bits? Regrettable losses necessary to fulfill OPFOR commander, Bill Knight's, operational intent.

 

Battle Resolution 

 

About the time Dave Spencer was celebrating his great victory, Control informed him  his triumphant Tomcats would begin ditching shortly. Seems both of his carriers had been sunk by Bill Knight, and no fixed airfield, or even another carrier, was anywhere to be had. This was the end. I have no idea what the wine was, how expensive and delectable, but the wine of victory was thoroughly savored by my section head, for he had wiped the floor with Dave, who possessed an awe inspiring Ph.D. in Military Operations Research, from Harvard, no less. Come Monday, though, his customary arrogance and aura of superiority were gone. He walked about head down, visibly depressed and like a man in a daze. He couldn't believe what had happened to him; so catastrophically at the (perceived) moment of victory.

 

Summing up, I believe the expectation that the US would almost immediately own the skies over Ukraine to be on the scale somewhere from delusional clear up to clinically insane. Such expectations seem to be predicated on a largely incompetent opponent who hasn't a prayer of prevailing vs western military might and training. Additionally, this seems to be predicated on the notion that Russian pilots are no better than Arab pilots and would be flying planes just about as capable relative to US combat aircraft. Does the US have some nice toys? Absolutely. But how many will actually be usable--and stay usable--over the course of the envisioned campaign? Is it reasonable to assume that other US foes are going to lie doggo so the US/NATO can fight Russia absent other military crises? I think not. And has anyone here bothered to look at the Russian approach to BVR aerial warfare in a very heavy jamming and rapidly maneuvering target environment? Once you have, consider this notional engagement, but with as many as 4 x AAMs targeted on each Raptor. This engagement presumes, too, that AWACS isn't attacked and downed or badly crippled. Nor does it recognize the existence of a technology called forward pass, in which missile shooters simply salvo missiles on command of aircraft whose far superior sensors allows guidance of those weapons even though the shooters can't see the target. All of a sudden those numerous not Stealth planes become a real threat, making the already enormous missile loads of Russian Stealth fighters many times larger than can be carried. 

 

Regards,

 

John Kettler

Edited February 21, 2015 by John Kettler

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

We were talking about something cool, and then nooooooo, another student of military history knows better.

 

Just in short, I do enjoy how impenetrable Russian IADS is, and how NATO will struggle with it, but supremely unstealthy last generation Russian fighters will zip on through NATO/Ukrainian IADS and kill  all the mens.

 

Carrying on in good order though!

 

 

 

This thread, methinks, very much needs to be put back on the track. Am not going to attempt to respond by individuals, so am going to address this by specific issue

 

Who died and appointed you to be thread-Stalin?  It was off track and we were happy there talking about much more relevant topics like how cool Longbow 2 was.

 

Re: IADS examples.

 

Super-off topic!  The question was never "will NATO bomb the Russians?" because the answer to that is fairly well agreed by all parties to be "Yes, eventually."  The million dollar question was if the Russians could bomb NATO.

 

And apparently given your able defense of large SAMs and the 2S6, the answer is "no, all Russian pilots will die shrieking in their canopies as they are violated from every direction by PATRIOT and 2S6 fire because IADS is the end all"

 

However I do not think that was your intent, so carrying on in good order.

 

Effectively the realistic outcome of any ADA component is to raise the difficulty of bombing something, but like all defenses, given effort and proper equipment they can be breached.  Anyone with a basic understanding of military workings understands defense is the stronger form of military operations, but it is never the decisive one (or, even if the defensive fight was important, what decided the matter was the follow-on offensive, or threat of same no matter how anemic it was).  The Israelis had to suffer through the slings and arrows of both first generation ATGMs and SAMs once they'd moved beyond babby's first missile stage.  However, as time and time again has proven, the IADS builds complexity into the operation, but to act as if they were the be all end all is a shallow reading of military history.  Hanoi still rocked with bomb blasts, Israeli jets still snake and naped their way across the desert.  Like all defensive, reactive ways of warfare, they're only good if you can follow up the breathing room they've given you.

 

Which gets to relative strength.

 

Here's what the Russian Air Force can muster circa around now:

 

830 "fighter" type planes (includes multi-roles and assumes the Russians would potentially commit MIG-31s offensively)+60 additional PAK-FAs maybe+100 claimed MIG-35 starting initial small number service claimed 2016

535 "Strike" type planes (planes with unambigiously strike-only role, chiefly SU-25 and SU-24)+89 claimed SU-34s

For amusement:

16 A-50 AWACS type planes

19 IL-78 aerial refueling planes+31 on order

 

Here's what the USAF brings to the fight:

1,473 "fighter" type planes (F-16, F-15s minus Es, F-22, F-35s in inventory)+1763 F-35 on order)

534 "Strike" type planes (F-15E, A-10C)

32 E-3 Sentry (AWACS)

16 JSTARs (Sort of AWACS for ground)

417 refueling planes (KC-135, not bored enough to look up KC-46 procurement)

 

USMC could bring if invited

229 Fighters (F/A-18s, to be replaced by F-35s)

99 Strike (AV-8, also to be replaced by F-35s)

 

USN if they get sick of the ocean

998  fighters (F/A-18A/B/C/D, and F/A-18E/Fs) 

117 Dedicated SEAD (EF-18G) 

 

Here's what our special relationship would show up with should Her Majesty deem fit:

 

125 Fighters (Typhoon)

102 Strike (Tornado)

6 AWACS (E-3 Sentry as operated by RAF)

 

Deutchland

 

109 Fighters (Typhoons, to eventually become fleet of 143)

116 Strike (Tornadoes) 

 

Merde. It is time for zee French:

135 Fighters (Rafales, remaining Mirage 2000s in fighter role)+37 additional Rafales if the Navy shows up.

84 Strike (Mirage 2000s in strike units)

4 AWACs (French owned E-3s)

 

Za naszą i waszą wolność!

 

80 Fighters (MIG-29, F-16)

23 Strike (SU-22)

 

"I swear guys!  THIS time we're going to pick a side and stick with it!"

 

76 Fighters (Typhoons)

134 Strike (Tornadoes, AMX International)

 

Ukraine:

50 Fighters (operational and on hand, others broken/in storage)

15 Strike (remaining operational SU-25s)

 

NATO

18 AWACS (E-3s "owned" by NATO)

 

These numbers:

 

Total commitment by all parties involved. Obviously not the case in event of war, each of these parties to include Russia will be forced to commit platforms to protecting other fronts  It's safe to assume this will equally effect all countries involved, and NATO is much better able to spread forces around at this point.

The only numbers that include F-35s are the USAF simply because I got bored of adding those in quickly

Russian "new" planes only count confirmed orders.

Only USAF tankers are counted, again this is a boredom thing on my end.

Russian and USAF strategic bombers are excluded.  It's doubtful any of those assets would be used for CAS, and very likely, at all for fear of causing some sort of "is this B-1 heading towards the Russian border dropping bombs on a bridge, or is it carrying nukes?" situations.

This excludes a large number of NATO countries.  I simply stuck to countries we've gotten some indication might show up in CMBS.

 

You can see the massive disparity in air power, capabilities, and numbers.  There are more USAF F-16s alone than all fighters in the Russian inventory, and significant numbers (nearly 50%) of Russian strike fighters are SU-25s, which given how everyone's crowing how dead the A-10 would be over Ukraine, I think it's safe to say they're not any more likely to survive terribly long either.  Additionally the 60 or so AWACS type platforms vs the 16 or so A-50s is a massive disparity in surveillance and command and control capability.  And bluntly russian SOF can only get lucky so many times, while risking the fact that "Chechen separatists" may suddenly appear in western Russia and do the same before disappearing to never be heard from again.

 

Some more random one off key points:

 

 

 

What are the MCRs (Mission Capable Rates) for the F-22A under high sortie conditions?

 

Who knows, there's only about 180ish of them I think, there's going to be a TON of other high end fighters in the air though, and the stealth isn't going to be as important for CAP over friendly lines.

 

 

 

If memory serves, the wartime scenario over West Germany envisioned only two E-3As up, covering the entire region. 

If memory serves, West Germany isn't a country any more, and the hypothetical war of 1988 is not the hypothetical war of 2017.

 

 

 

My section head, Bill Knight, ran OPFOR--Tu-22M BACKFIRE & SOJs (Stand Off Jammers); his boss, Dave Spencer, had the FAD for a BLUFOR CVBG (carrier battle group). Site of battle? Navy tactical simulator in Monterey, California. Each side had its own war room, and there was a separate Control room where all was known. The stakes? A good bottle of wine and gloating rights on Monday. Event was part of a threat conference the weekend immediately before Monday.

Irrelevant to a painful degree.  Finding a tank company gone to ground is something much harder to do than finding a CVBG.  While standoff is going to be important, the defender's ability to acquire Russian aircraft will be much greater than Russian aviation's ability to acquire NATO ground forces.  Simple reality of finding a plane in the cold blue sky over a tank on the cluttered green earth.

 

 

 

Summing up, I believe the expectation that the US would almost immediately own the skies over Ukraine to be on the scale somewhere from delusional clear up to clinically insane

Says the man who thinks tanks are aircraft carriers.  

 

As I have shown there is a MASSIVE difference in NATO capabilities and Russian capabilities.  And we know unambigiously USAF/USN/USMC avaitions, and several of their NATO counterparts fly significantly more than their potential Russian opponents. 830 Russian fighters to the 3,312 fighters NATO could call on, even assuming mirror capabilities is simply not a fight the Russians are going to be able to manage.  And ESPECIALLY something the Russians will not be able to manage over PATRIOT (from various NATO allies and US Army sites), MANPADs, Ukrainian ADA, etc, etc, etc.  The idea an SU-25 is going to live long enough to make a pass is possible, leakers can happen.  The idea it's not going to be part of his posthumous medal for valor is positive madness.  

 

Even assuming leakers, the odds that an SU-25 or SU-24 is going to get over US forces, make more than one pass, and survive to return to friendly lines is even more insane.  With Russian IADS, it's going to be hard for US forces to bomb Russian forces as much as we'd like.  Russian strike pilots would do well to jettison their landing gear on takeoff to save weight, because god knows they wouldn't be needing them again if they make it to the FEBA.  The war in the Ukraine is not a war of national survival.  The Russians would not be desperate enough to simply throw away aircraft they cannot afford to lose by the dozens to achieve tactical level strikes (especially considering each of those 830 fighters that follows the SU-25s it was trying to protect crashing to earth is one less fighter to stave off the 991 dedicated strike craft+ 3000ish now bomb carrying fighters from NATO). 

 

Given this force, this literal swarm of current generation airframes, something like a yankee imperialist 2S6 is a stupid, stupid, stupid waste of money.  We're best served by the might of our winged bretheren, and saving our pennies to make sure those flyboys get all the crew rest they need instead of pretending it's still 1989 and paying for Chaparral 2 or Son of Linebacker.  

[blottes]

He had a good point when he recited a wargame directly out of Red Storm Rising... 

[John Kettler]

panzersaurkrautwerfer,

 

Judging my your apparent reactivity to my post, I appear to have struck a nerve or maybe nerve plexus. To characterize me as a "man who thinks tanks are aircraft carriers" is pretty snarky, and "thread-Stalin" was even worse. The latter wasn't wry humor, for it "bit" the instant I read it.

 

You did a bang up job of misconstruing and distorting a whole series of things I said. I never said the US IADS is all, to the contrary, I depicted it as subject to multiple forms of attack, including SpecOps. I pointed out, in instance after instance, where the vulnerabilities lay and what the Russians had the wherewithal to do, having very carefully thought through what they'd be facing. I then essentially argued that a variety of frictions (ECM, anti AWACS and anti Patriot weapons, OPFOR SpecOps vs Patriot, AWACS and such, poor US MCRs and more) would significantly degrade expected US combat performance, in turn making Russian aircraft more survivable. That would likely reflect positively in the Russian CAS/BI side of things.

 

I very much appreciate the detailed force breakdowns. Things have changed past drastically from what they were during the Cold War. Back then, Russia and the Warsaw Pact held the numerical advantage, but now it's Russia vs practically everyone. I agree US and NATO forces are far better trained and get more flying time/month. The FRG may be gone, but that in no way invalidates the point I was making about AWACS coverage.  I do NOT share the views of some here who think the A-10 wouldn't be survivable in the campaign we're discussing. A-10s have flown as many as seven sorties/day in combat, too. Consequently, I'm very much of the same opinion regarding the SU-25's prospects. In one case during that Georgia business, a Russian Su-25 took an engine hit (SAM blew up under the plane) from an SA-6/SA-11 (don't recall which) SAM which destroyed one engine outright, but thanks to armor around the engines, the other one was fine, and the plane got home. Any such hit on a single engine plane is goodbye plane.

 

Nor was the wargame I cited irrelevant. It was relevant precisely because it spoke to how a single poor decision can unhinge a defense composed of the best of the best of everything a nation has at its disposal, which is exactly what Phoenix armed F-14s, with top notch highly trained crews, operating off CVNs, were then. Superior technology, even the revolutionary technology embodied in the tracks 24, simo engages 6 AWG-9 FCS and the associated ultra long range Phoenix missile, which was unique in AAMs, still failed to deliver the expected win. As I said, it was a cautionary tale. And how many here are blithely prepared to sign up for the "Russians won't be able to fly CAS" while at the same time proclaiming over on CMRT how the Russians beat the Germans at the operational and operational strategic levels? Do the chess playing Russian strategists now suddenly revert to tiddly winks just because it's air warfare and not ground combat? Somehow, that doesn't seem like a safe bet at all.

 

If the Russians perceive a need for CAS, they'll find a way to do so or get the same net effects some other way. One of the ways to get there from here is to, by one way or several, tear a hole through the SAM belt and do to the US/NATO what we did to the Iraqis in GW I. Create a corridor through which to ram further forces to wreck the SAM defenses and create a secure corridor through which to move the strike force proper. During the Cold War, we called this the Air Operation. This Air University Review article explains the enormous differences between how the Russians looked at conducting offensive aerial warfare and how the US thought they did. This Air Operation concept has doubtless evolved dramatically since, not least because strike aircraft can now do many times more damage /sortie than was previously the case, and they can do it from standoff ranging from minor to several hundred klicks. The latter case would involve such things as AS-4 and follow-ons launched from Tu-22M BACKFIRE, which is a theater level multipurpose aircraft; Putin has shown a willingness to use against NATO, as seen in his NATO interception challenged probes of NATO nations in the region.

 

blottes,

 

Welcome aboard!

 

The scenario I cited was played well before Red Storm Rising was ever heard of. What I described wasn't some wrongly credited memory from the book. The book wasn't published until 1986, and I was only at Hughes until late 1984, so there is no confusion on my end about what happened and whence the scenario came.

 

Regards,

 

John Kettler

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

 

 

Judging my your apparent reactivity to my post, I appear to have struck a nerve or maybe nerve plexus. To characterize me as a "man who thinks tanks are aircraft carriers" is pretty snarky, and "thread-Stalin" was even worse. The latter wasn't wry humor, for it "bit" the instant I read it.

 

You did compare the ability of the Soviet military in 1980's to conduct anti-shipping warfare to the ability of the Russian Federation to conduct CAS over hostile airspace in 2017.  You also announced it was your duty to bring a thread that was pleasantly derailed back to quite honestly a line of discussion that was pretty well tapped out.

 

So yeah, apples and monkeys, thread-Stalin.

 

Anyway, so now I'm bored, annoyed, and I AM FILLED WITH THE ANGER AND FURY OF A'TOMIC POM*

 

 

 

You did a bang up job of misconstruing and distorting a whole series of things I said. I never said the US IADS is all, to the contrary, I depicted it as subject to multiple forms of attack, including SpecOps. I pointed out, in instance after instance, where the vulnerabilities lay and what the Russians had the wherewithal to do, having very carefully thought through what they'd be facing. I then essentially argued that a variety of frictions (ECM, anti AWACS and anti Patriot weapons, OPFOR SpecOps vs Patriot, AWACS and such, poor US MCRs and more) would significantly degrade expected US combat performance, in turn making Russian aircraft more survivable. That would likely reflect positively in the Russian CAS/BI side of things.

 

Re: SOF

 

There's practical limitations on just what they can do.  Russian SOF is not some sort of collection of ubermench able to accomplish any mission, any time without raising an eyebrow.  In a practical sense given the overt, and high intensity nature of the conflict we can assume the level of force protection is to put it mildly, "harsh and draconian."  Preventing observation of these high value assets will be a priority, let alone keeping folks back and away from the launchers.  Counting on a SOF campaign to do anything but knock off the odd launcher is fool hardy and the Russians are not at all that stupid.  

 

This isn't 1988 man.  There's no ultra deep cover Spetnaz company waiting by Ramstein to conduct a suicide attack with the Red Army Faction to knock out as many fighters as possible.  In talking about conducting SOF missions outside of the Ukraine, it's a game Russia will be hard pressed to play, simply put if it starts running craziness in NATO countries, it's inviting effectively like escalation into Russia, which is damage it cannot afford to absorb (Again, how hard would it be to send a few dozen Chechen fighters via funding through Saudi Arabia with Iglas in hand to camp out below any airport/air base?).

 

There's also a practical limit on how many special forces units can be deployed against targets (just in terms of teams available, and able to effectively blend in), mobility (likely restricted to foot movement, full scale war will doubtlessly bring a curfew and civilian traffic will be restricted.

 

Which really gets to the point of we can expect an effect, but again, an effect to the point where it strongly influences the ability of NATO to the degree it negates a nearly three to one advantage in airframes, literally dozens of AWACs and other radar platforms, the 1,000+NATO available PATRIOT missile launchers (again, they're not all going to the Ukraine, but it provides a number to draw from, and PATRIOT can be air transported pretty easily compared to other hardware) is just daft.  

 

 

 

The FRG may be gone, but that in no way invalidates the point I was making about AWACS coverage.

But it does.  The loss of one AWACS would hurt, but it's not going to remove the capability.  The number of AWACS available also means you could afford to have more than two E3s in the air at once, say some sort of two forward one back setup.  It also handily negates your earlier statement about airframe/crew fatigue, they're not going to run into the ground with that many available platforms.  Two AWACS over West Germany reflects the 80's availability of those platforms.  It's not 1988 anymore, and the capability has increased to the degree where your point is moot.

 

 

 

I do NOT share the views of some here who think the A-10 wouldn't be survivable in the campaign we're discussing. A-10s have flown as many as seven sorties/day in combat, too. Consequently, I'm very much of the same opinion regarding the SU-25's prospects. In one case during that Georgia business, a Russian Su-25 took an engine hit (SAM blew up under the plane) from an SA-6/SA-11 (don't recall which) SAM which destroyed one engine outright, but thanks to armor around the engines, the other one was fine, and the plane got home. Any such hit on a single engine plane is goodbye plane.

 

A-10 has a role, but its after the Russian Air Force has been put to bed, and SEAD/DEAD has done its job.  Same deal with the SU-25, but there's no reasonable observer who believes the Russian Air Force can take on the NATO air element, to the degree it prevents the NATO CAP from being able to operate freely above friendly forces.

 

Additionally how many sorties did that  damaged SU-25 go on to fly the next day?  I rather imagine it was difficult with significant parts of the airplane missing.  A plane that badly damaged is effectively a self-conducting downed pilot rescue and little more.  Even if hundreds of SU-25s are limping home (this is doubtful.  The Georgian example made it home because once it left the target area it was safe from enemy fire, over the Ukraine the SU-25 would have to dodge the pursuing fighters), holed by various hits, they're effectively "killed" for the purposes of follow on operations and likely the remainder of the campaign.

 

 

 

 And how many here are blithely prepared to sign up for the "Russians won't be able to fly CAS" while at the same time proclaiming over on CMRT how the Russians beat the Germans at the operational and operational strategic levels? Do the chess playing Russian strategists now suddenly revert to tiddly winks just because it's air warfare and not ground combat? Somehow, that doesn't seem like a safe bet at all.

 

We aren't talking about just superior technology dude.  We're talking about better planes, we're talking about better pilots, we're talking about three times as many airframes, cutting edge sensors, advanced command and control, all conducted above highly advanced friendly air defense.  If it was just one for one each side had 200 planes, but the US had 200 F-22s and the Russians 200 MIG-29s, it'd be a rough go, but certainly some CAS would leak through just by saturation.

 

But to the degree the Russians are outnumbered, to the degree they are behind technologically and training wise....god.  It'd be a bad day to be a Russian pilot.

 

Which goes to the REDFOR planning cycle. They're not going to commit horribly outnumbered, out gunned, and out-manned platforms to knock out a few tanks here and there.  Giving up a few Bears or Backfires to kill a carrier is an effective trade, carriers are important.  Giving up a four strike fighter element for a chance at a tank or two, the math just doesn't work.  The Russians only have so many planes, and they cannot afford to fritter them away by hoping THIS SU-24 isn't going to be picked up by AWACS while somewhere over Russia before catching an AIM-120 after crossing the border.  Further any fighters expended trying to make a hole through CAP is one less fighter to keep the few thousand NATO strike capable fighters away from bombing the tar out of Russian forces.

 

The actual value of the Russian Air Force would likely be closer to the whole "fleet in being" because that's the only way it survives the war without getting its heart ripped out over the Ukraine.

 

 

 

. Create a corridor through which to ram further forces to wreck the SAM defenses and create a secure corridor through which to move the strike force proper.

All well and good, but how fast do you think it'd take follow on NATO CAP to arrive?  Given the number of AWACS, and NATO interceptors, any hole will last for a few minutes, and only be created at major losses.  This was viable when the air forces were basically 1:1 in number, or Russian superiority, as losing some number of planes to secure a local advantage was sensible.  But in a fight where NATO has vast superiority of numbers and systems  it's just feeding the NATO kill count.  Make a hole, AWACS sends more fighters to fill the hole.  They have more fighters and more capable systems, Ivan's skeletal remains are collected up by a MIA recovery team in 2034 that's working with permission from Kiev.  His MIG-29 is in pieces, not over the Russian Army, A-10s have party funtime in late August because there's no Russian fighters left to challenge them.

 

Third and fourth order effects.  

 

 

 

and they can do it from standoff ranging from minor to several hundred klicks.

 

Which gets to the point that building a new SHORAD system is moronic now.

 

Simply put Russian CAS may get some hits in.  But it will also almost certainly die in the process.  And Russians are not stupid enough to throw away their platforms and pilots to bag a couple of tanks.

 

 

*I discovered the PX sells rip-its.  My Grandfather picked up a strange affection for spam after his years in the Marines, it appears I've acquired at least an occasional nostalgia for terrible energy drinks after my years in the army.

[Pablius]

Back off topic...

 

Longbow 2 was a fine game, I specially liked to fly night mission on it, I remember everything was tinted green or maybe my memories are too scrambled to serve any purpose 

 

It even had SAR missions you fly in support, right? Which was rare, don't remember any other sim with those

 

But real men started with Gunship and Gunship 2000 from Microprose back in the day 

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

 

 

It even had SAR missions you fly in support, right? Which was rare, don't remember any other sim with those

 

It did! I remember a very tense mission fending off waves of Iranians to get a CH-53 on ground to scoop up some SEALs too.  Was great.  By the time I was done was black on anything but 30 MM, but the SEALs made it.

 

Same deal with flying Blackhawks.  Good times.

 

 

But real men started with Gunship and Gunship 2000 from Microprose back in the day  

 

 

I played Gunship 2000, but I was way too young to get it.  My elite squadron of "flying Snacks" did not benefit much from my skills, or spelling.

[Michael Emrys]

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. 

 

Yes, but I liked it better as the YF-17, the contender for the lightweight fighter that got won by the F-16. Ideally the Navy would have kept in that configuration and bought something heavier as an attack plane, but I guess budget constraints made that a non-starter. The Navy had already blown its heavy attack budget on the abortive A-12. What a sad tale that is...

 

Michael