Codename Duchess

Full disclosure, I'm not a Top Gun Instructor so I don't have the insane level of knowledge those guys do about all things foreign and domestic, weapons and tactics wise. I will still offer what I can though. Good job on not making me have to break out the bingo square yet. Gameplay wise: I never bring aircraft because they're too expensive and too vulnerable, unrealistically, to in game AA assets. I'm a big fan of pzsrkrtwfr's suggested model. Real Life things: Afghanistan - Mujaheddin claim 270 kills, Soviets claim 100 losses. The truth is somewhere in between (not sure who is more notorious for exaggeration) but whether in actual destruction or merely the change in tactics, the Stinger was a game changer. Shooting down precision/small munitions with bullets - Absolutely possible. You can see the impact around 11 seconds in. Not as fast as a maverick (which goes fast but not that fast) or a HARM (which goes fast), but comparable to a ballistic bomb. C-RAM is able to do it, and Pantsir is supposedly able to, and I have no reason to doubt this capability. Both are a little large for CMBS, being truck mounted (and outside the scope as they are used to defend bases/HQs/SAMs, rather than frontline units) but they are not multiple story units. Tunguska doesn't list munitions other than cruise missiles (and presumably large Russian style ARMs) and is more of the front line SHORAD. So I agree that PGMs shouldn't be interceptable in game, with the units we have. But it's totally possible. Both Tunguska and Pantsir are capable of remote targeting from either a central command unit or a "master" Pantsir, so not all units need to be emitting either. Again, I have no reason to doubt this capability as it's far from outlandish, although I imagine EW makes this more suspect. But yeah, don't expect to see either system on the front line. Munitions in general - Russia has laser and GLONASS capable bombs, they just don't have very many. Same with the R-77. They saw incredibly limited deployment in Syria, whereas JDAMs and AIM-120s are like everywhere. We also have the GBU-54 LJDAM which is laser and GPS capable. Those are pretty common now too. There's a fire and forget version of the R-27 (IR) too, but the R-27 has like Sparrow level accuracy rates. The fact of the matter is the US has a stupid crazy lead in both capability and more importantly numerical advantage of PGMs. 2017 also sees widespread use of the GBU-53/B SDB II, which has radar, IR, GPS/IRU, and laser guidance, and a standoff range of 45 miles against moving targets. Mavericks, Hellfire, Brimstone, and GBU-12 also serve as effective standoff weapons that leave the launch aircraft out of range from any in game SHORAD and are capable of hitting and hard killing a moving target. Laser guided munitions are all capable of buddy lasing from the ground or other aircraft, including drones, so the launch aircraft can be even safer. Dealing with something like Pantsir? Shoot more than one. We can see what we are shooting at and know how to adjust. I'll leave it at that. Defense against SHORAD - Hit on heavily with stand off above. There's simply no reason for me to be that close to the ground where a Tunguska or MANPADS (despite whatever fancy targeting system the Russians claim to have to bring it into the IADS) can touch me. If I AM that close, I have onboard EW and other defensive options, never mind my speed. But we don't really train for that kind of low CAS because... There's no reason for it. I've said it before, but CAS from a fast mover will be insanely rare/non-existent in the first days (entirely possible to stretch ~2 weeks depending on how big of a conflict we are talking). The days of flying my Hornet between tree tops, while ****ing awesome, are no more due to advances in munitions and sensors on both sides. If I can bomb a tank from 45 miles away with a "cheap (~$100k)" bomb, why do I need to risk my $75 million aircraft (oh and myself) by trying to knock the hat off of a Russian conscript with my jetwash? Even a "cheaper (~$20k)" GBU-12 lets me hit you comfortably from 40,000 feet and 10+ miles away with one hand. But I can't do that with a non deconstructed Russian IADS available, so I'm not going to risk it and my commanders aren't going to order it to knock out a $3-5 million tank. Sorry ground guys. This is where attack helicopters come in because they're MUCH less vulnerable to an IADS. The finest Russian SAM in the world can't guide a missile into something that can literally land wherever it wants to go defensive. Plus Apache can shoot from behind a hilltop, so it's not even super vulnerable to SHORAD. Russian helicopters are a little more vulnerable in this regard, but you would still expect to see attack helicopters performing 95%+ of any CAS until Air Superiority is achieved. What about if there's some pressing attack that needs to get destroyed right now at whatever cost? Well the US has munitions like JSOW and what not that could allow 4 Super Hornets to turn a tank division into scrap from 150 miles out, Smerch style. And that's how we'd do it. Conclusion So yeah, the CAS in this game is all sorts of messed up and definitely the least realistic part of the game.

Something is going to have to give with new super tanks, new submarines, new frigates/corvettes, a new carrier, new stealth planes, new bombers, new missiles, and upgrades to older versions of all of the same. Factor in ongoing conflict in two theaters and oh by the way a thoroughly weakened economy and international sanctions. Even the US in the mid 2000s would have struggled with all of that, even if you waive the costs on all things AFG/IRQ related.

The Russians almost certainly have a lot less of the bloated GMT training (heh, ATM Machine) than we do. I truly envy them of that. Side note but sorta related. Got to speaking with an Indian Navy MiG-29 pilot the other day at a bar. He said they get something like 20 hours a year. I can't even comprehend safe flying that low. I'm genuinely curious what Russia gets out side of Syria.

I couldn't possibly dig up the post as it was several months back, but someone did post proof that adding a third person to the BMP did improve detection quite a bit.

Big bites for you!

How's the cow?

This was a big reason why I ended up switching my commissioning from the South Hudson Institute of Technology and Science to a more reasonable state school and Navy program. They told me I'd be lucky to fly once a week in the Army as an officer. Now that I fly pointy nose things for the Global Force for Good, I get a lot more hours than that. From what I've heard, it sounds like every aviation program that isn't the Navy's is completely illogical, and even the Navy isn't perfect. So it doesn't surprise me that extends to the ground pounders in our sister service.

It's a funny thing, buoyancy. I rode in an AAV7 back when I was a midshipman. I was convinced I was going to drown 110% of the time. Anything more boat like is a plus in my opinion, and honestly the whole idea of a an amphibious landing as we all imagine them is pretty archaic in this day and age. Really they just need something that can cross long distance over water, quickly. The fanciest death-dealing armored amphibious vehicle doesn't mean a thing when the LHD carrying them all sank from a Chinese ASCM because it was sitting 15 (or 150) miles off the coast.

Beware the folly of a quick, easy, cheap war.

What does Russia accomplish by smashing the Ukrainian Army and then exiting the country? That's not going to bring Ukraine back into Russia's fold (quite the opposite). I guess it would secure the DNR, LNR, and Crimea further bit the first two are hardly strategic (nor does Russia seem in any big hurry or desire to do so via easier methods) and the latter is already secure. I think an occupation of the country with the eventual goal of Russification is the only legitimate reason for a widespread Russian invasion. I see nothing to be gained and a lot to be lost by large smash and dash.

Believe me, there's no widespread support for Trump in the military. Hillary isn't any more popular, but don't sit there thinking we love the guy. Some do, sure, but not as many as you seem to think. I think he's a reckless, irresponsible loudmouth. I think this is a very dangerous topic to discuss though.

Pretty sure if modern MLRS systems were included you would need a gentleman's agreement to not use them until the final turn of combat for the sake of fairness On the topic of CAS I never bring it. It's too easy for a tunguska to sit in the back and splash it and I will never see it. Personally think the CAS system needs a major overhaul. But I'm a bit biased.

He didn't say that anywhere, he just said that in game ATGMs, Javelin excluded, are unreliable. The closest to what you imply is that he said ground based radars are not as useful as one would think, which is true. I'm inclined to agree as my own experiences with non-Javelins have more often than not been an exercise in frustration and dead pixeltruppen.

They were used to success in Korea and Vietnam. Step-Grandpa was a flamethrowerman in WW2. He died before I could ask but from what I've researched I think the whole tank explosion thing is a Hollywood myth.

If someone is moving, someone else should be shooting.

The staff put a lot of effort into developing a realistic and plausible timeline for the campaign and backstory. You're suggesting we take their hard work and then add lunacy at the end. You've been met by 100% opposition to the idea, with every effort made to explain why. And yet you refuse to acknowledge the absurdity you are spouting. I think it's best you drop it.

I don't have time to go through everything right now but as someone who has flown 50 feet off the water before it is the most stressful, tiring, and dangerous thing I have ever done. With modern Terrain Following Radar it's marginally easier but by no means less stressful, and I can't speak to the quality or existence of that capability in the SU-24. So no, they absolutely had every right to worry because it takes like a tenth of a second to screw up and die at that speed and altitude. Your brain won't even recognize it before it happens. This isn't an anti-Russia thing, it's an anto-stupidity thing and I hope you can recognize that. And that's before you're flying at an object with masts taller than your altitude. So no, it wasn't professional. It was reckless, provocative and exceedingly dangerous for all involved and we had reason to protest the method (if not the presence, a flyby is fine, legal, and a regular occurrence if conducted SAFELY). Furthermore the Destroyer would have had no way to verify it was unarmed until weapon release as that's not how anti-ship missile seekers work. Plus drop tanks can look awful suspicious when viewed through a camera.

http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/4071/was-russias-brazen-air-strike-on-us-backed-anti-isis-fighters-a-ploy Rogeway suspects this was a ploy by the Russians to get access to the US Coalitions intelligence picture, which is something they've wanted since the onset of bombing. If only they could be trusted to not immediately start bombing anti-regime targets, they might have a chance of actual cooperation. However given that they didn't respond on dedicated channels it's pretty obvious this was deliberately provocative. Russian pilots aren't that unsafe and unprofessional. Especially as they returned to bomb it after the Hornets went to tank. Ballsy move by the Russians and I hope the Pentagon doesn't give them a single sticky note of intelligence.

Lucas' opinions on strategy tend to come from late Cold War thrillers (I'm aware Arc Light is set in '94) rather than any sort of actual awareness of the last 20 years of foreign relations.

What possible reason does NATO have to invade Russia in any situation short of regime change? Limited excursions won't be seen as such and will not be easy. Tomahawk strikes on SAM sites is one thing, but you're not going to see tanks or troops across the border.

They tend to hit us with our "General Military Training" videos all in one day so they blend together and remind me that I could be flying but noooo. I understand the importance of them the first time* but it's usually a pretty soul crushing day of the month, especially since I don't use tobacco, ride motorcycles, or rape things. Did you guys have anything like that in the Russian Armed Forces? I.e. safety briefings on random things unrelated to your job. I often wonder these things. *As an officer it's more about knowing how to help your guys rather than worry about yourself although you'd be surprised.

Obviously you've never had to sit through 6 hours of "Don't get drunk off tobacco and rape a motorcycle" power points.

The Russians have the RPO and according to Wikipedia we still have the most metal looking weapon of all time (M202 Flash). Plus we still have the Mk-77 incendiary bomb. Personally I have no experience with it but I imagine it's a context needed thing. Plus there's a thermobaric warhead for the Hellfire. RPO and Flash are both thermobaric weapons. Same end result (actually more lethal) as a flamethrower, but from farther away and lighter. Also less likely to have CNN calling you a war criminal of footage of a rocket launcher than a backpack spitting fire.

Hell, the second the Russians gas NATO nukes will fly. US doctrine does not distinguish between WMDs and the use of one calls for a nuclear response.

All of the fancy Russian jamming in the world isn't going to hide a T-72 crossing the open from a targeting pod or the Mk.1 eyeball, so I contend that NATO air to ground superiority will shine once the Russian air defenses are degraded (see: the 100 other discussions we've had for timeliness, capabilities, and discussions of Port security). That is apples to oranges compared to an ATGM team in the woods, but the point had merit. Plus with the prevalence of AESA radars in tactical and strategic reconnaissance aircraft, jamming is much less effective* thanks to the joys of magic I mean physics. Also keep in mind that NATO has the optics/sensors advantage on the ground still, and every difficulty they face against the Russians due to terrain equally applies in the reverse. *I'm not nearly qualified enough and almost certainly not allowed to discuss the how.