Why is US CAS so expensive?

[John Kettler]

I find it odd, counterintuitive, frustrating and even at times anger inducing at how costly US fixed wing and rotary air support is. In a Medium battle, Probe, the US defending has IIRC, 6820 points, but the cheapest CAS is 2376, with Rarity 7128, a brace of F-15E Strike Eagles.The entire (puny relative to cost of troops and AFVs) American force budget can't cover such an outlay! Since the US has far more planes than either the Russians or the Ukrainians, and US CAS has been commonplace for decades on end and is a hallmark of the American way of war, how did we wind up with the US player being pretty much unable to afford air support? In my last QB, I was lucky I could afford a pair of 81 mm mortars and a pair of 120 mm mortars. How did the most air support rich military on the planet wind up in CMBS with CAS that's so astronomically expensive? The force selection panel won't let me buy just one plane, so there's no way I can see to get the cost down to where I can use it at all in a Medium battle, Probe, as defender. Adding to my angst is that I get a JTAC as a routine element when I buy my force. To me, this is practically maddening. What am I missing here, please? There must be a rational explanation for CAS the Unattainable™, right?

 

Regards,

 

John Kettler

 

 

[Sublime]

first you can delete one of the planes or helos thats for any side. second that battle side is probably considered small in the bigger scale of things amd theres a full scale war so mayve your two platoons and two vehicles dont rate CAS. third the manual backstory is that the skies are hotly contested. this isnt iraq afghan vietnam or even germany 44/45, and id venture its probably worse than even NAfrica or Italy 42/43.in any case US ground troops and forces are very expensive and also seem to come as veteran and crack as default. changing soft factors saves points too.

Edited August 27, 2015 by Sublime

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

It was Korea, but for the first few weeks in the event of an outbreak of war we simply were told not to expect fixed wing  air support.  Not for lack of aviation, but because they needed to prep the battlefield first by chewing up the enemy airforce pretty good, conducting "deep" strikes against strategic-operational level targets, Air Defense suppression missions, or interdicting enemy movements.  While the A-10 is a great CAS platform, it'd also have reaped a terrible toll on enemy forces moving forward and likely would pay more dividends in that role at that start of the conflict.

Once things settled down a bit, a few weeks in it would have been a lot more fixed wing CAS on call.  I don't think the North Africa-Italy comparison for CMBS is quite accurate* but in a shorter war with a higher capacity enemy, much of your aviation has more important things to do than pickle especially stubborn stone houses, or fry two or three tanks parked in defensive positions. 

 

On the other hand, Apaches would be doing a lot, if not the overwhelming majority of air support for those first few weeks.  Wish their stand-off capabilities were better modeled though.  

 

 

*In another thread I did a breakdown of available airframes in terms of NATO forces vs Russian, and it's frankly absurdly in favor of NATO even before trying to factor in airframe age and capability factors.  In so many words the USAF alone is something well beyond what the Russian air force can handle, let alone with USN/USMC and NATO allies.

[antaress73]

They are not counting on their air force alone, but on a combination of air force , insanely dense and sophisticated integrated air defenses and deep strategic and accurate Iskander and cruise missile strikes on enemy airbases to counter enemy airpower. It would work for a few weeks and that's all they need in a non-total war setting like in CMBS. If it goes to total war, nukes would be used.

So its realistic for a two months limited conflict. You also need to consider air frame availibility for NATO (not great from what i've read. You also need to consider commitments elsewhere). Range is also a factor. If you need them closer to the battlefield for CAS, you put them in danger of missile attacks on their airbases. As for AWACS and air refueling tankers as force multipliers for NATO, the Russians know this and have developed long range asymetric solutions to them (specialized very long range air to air missiles). Their EW warfare and jamming capabilities are shockingly vastly superior to NATO by NATO's own admission. It would be a very difficult and costly fight.

All of this is exarcerbed by the fact you're fighting near Russia's borders. They stand no chance in a conflict over a remote area, but near their borders its very different.

Panzer is right: Attack helos on both sides would be much more common.

Edited August 27, 2015 by antaress73

[Red Rage]

Better question is why use CAS at all, even for Russian side, when you can get several batteries of high caliber arty + spotters for a price of the  cheapest helo wing. It's fun to use and has a cool "whooosh" sound, but makes no sense if going for pure force efficiency. Sure, Russian CAS is alot cheaper but even with the reduced cost it's still too much for a sensible purchase.

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

On the other hand if we're using operational arguments, Russian fixed wing should be an especially rare beast indeed, as everything that limits NATO fixed wing applies several times over to the Russians.  

[womble]

The cost of the airframes doesn't seem prohibitive. It's the Rarity that is.
 
Cost is meant to be a reflection of the combat effectiveness (over a range of conditions/situations) of the asset. Rarity is about  how likely you are to see it employed. The Rarity pricing really adds emphasis to 
 

...that battle is probably considered small in the bigger scale of things [and] there's a full scale war so [maybe] your two platoons and two vehicles don't rate CAS...

IIRC, the US isn't required to spend its Rarity on much else, so larger engagements might more easily accommodate the fast-movers.

[John Kettler]

Most interesting replies! I toggled the air support purchase options, and for each one I opened up, I could see no way to get just one. Again, maybe I was tired and missed something, and I was only working from the lefthand column. I'll buy one of the options, in a dummy QB, then see what I can do screen right. That said, there are very strong arguments as to why aircraft and helos come in pairs. Doctrine based on the need for mutual support and redundancy is but one aspect. Lowering soft factors, considering the firepower these birds have, is somewhat scary to contemplate, but War is a cruel and demanding mistress who cares not the cost and is insatiable. No fixed wing air? Eek! Just how I don't want things when a huge mass of hungry NK haters charges over the border. I don't think of the A-10, which we really need in the game and ought to be much cheaper than, say, F-16s, as a plane that would be used for attacking enemy airfields. Seems like a really bad idea to me.  I freely confess I don't understand why Apaches are even more expensive than fixed wing aircraft.

 

Concur ref Russian counters to AWACS, JSTARS, KC-10s, etc. They are well aware of the issues and have developed an integrated response. I have some familiarity with the long range AWACS killer stuff, having worked on a program at Hughes called ANTISUAWACS, as in Anti Soviet Union AWACS. I can't tell you how many times I warned of the dangers of relying on a handful of high leverage platforms. When I was in the business, we had a whole two JSTARS period and maybe 10 AWACS in Europe, but I don't remember whether that was US only or other NATO in addition. And the thought of the kind of havoc one sniper near Geilenkirchen, FRG (main AWACS base) could wreak was nearly enough to keep me up at night, let alone the Strela blok, target triggered unattended SA-7 on the airfield flight paths. In any event, the Russians deployed a very robust integrated jamming capability against AWACS, ASARS (deep look Synthetic Aperture Radar System on TR-1) and JSTARS. Doubtless, it's gotten much worse since, as seen, for example, in that very sophisticated and powerful mobile ECM rig the Russians sent into Ukraine.

 

Regarding Russian use of CAS, sure, you can buy heavy artillery, but unless it's got TRPs, best bring, as Dad used to say, a light bulb and a lunch, since you'll be there a while!  What the Su-25 gives the Russians is shattering firepower delivered instantly or very close to that. One moment you're minding your own business. Next thing you know, the entire area explodes! Having been on the receiving end of such a strike, I speak from experience here. Nor is it the whistle of incoming but more like the sky's being ripped asunder. The psychological effect from that alone is considerable. This is as it should be, for we know that the A-10 scared the Taliban so greatly that upon hearing the distinctive engine sounds, they would go to ground and hide, lest it find and attack them with overwhelming power.

 

I don't at all understand why non US NATO tactical aircraft should have airframe availability issues. After all, these planes are generally a decade plus, sometimes several decades, more modern than Russian aircraft in similar roles. Indeed, I posted a link a few weeks back which talked about how Putin's high OPTEMPO, when mixed with very worn Russian aircraft, was causing lots of planes to crash. Losses the skeletal Red Air force could ill afford.

 

Something else I find myself wondering about is the strike ordnance on CAS birds in the game. For example, are bombs the dumb variety, LGBs, JDAM, JSOW or what? This stuff matters, not least because it translates into exposure to SAMs and ADA. Consider, for example, this plot of the AGM-65 operating envelope as a function of Mach number for the delivery platform quite convincingly demonstrates that launch, provided the target can be seen by the seeker, can be from standoff ranges far exceeding the biggest CMBS map. And now, there's apparently a LOAL (Lock On After Launch) capability, too. When I was at Hughes, I worked directly on Maverick analyses for all sorts of targets and seeker types, and the referenced plot is quite familiar to me. Tunguska would have a decent chance vs an LGB, and Pantsir, not currently in the game, was explicitly designed to defeat HARM and other high speed and/or low signature targets because it was designed to protect the SA-10/S-300 from such threats. A tracked version of Pantsir has already been exhibited, and the baseline truck mounted ones were prominently featured in the Victory Day parade. Lots to think about! And when we get the A-10, the ordnance loads are going to blow people's minds, for they dwarf those of the Su-25. Few are they aircraft whose weapon loads exceed aircraft weight. The A-1 Skyraider of Vietnam War renown could and did do it, and so can the A-10. Must be interesting to be at BFC trying to sort all this stuff out.

 

Regards,

 

John Kettler

Edited August 27, 2015 by John Kettler

[VladimirTarasov]

 

I don't at all understand why non US NATO tactical aircraft should have airframe availability issues. After all, these planes are generally a decade plus, sometimes several decades, more modern than Russian aircraft in similar roles. Indeed, I posted a link a few weeks back which talked about how Putin's high OPTEMPO, when mixed with very worn Russian aircraft, was causing lots of planes to crash. Losses the skeletal Red Air force could ill afford.

 

 

If we are speaking about SU-25 (the standard baseline) then yes A-10Cs are way more advance and extremely more capable, But you can't just say the SU-25SM is less capable then the A-10C, Nor can you say the SU-34 is less capable in the ground attack than the F-15E... Keep in mind the Russian armed forces is not airforce based. It will be using air defense systems from ground to protect from massive air attacks. The Russian airforce doesn't have numbers to fight NATO, But they will be used in important places for example if air defense gets breached you will be facing the 2nd lair of defense. In a war like this CAS from planes like F-16s and F-15s or SU-34s and SU-24s just wont happen that often. And the NATO aircraft bases in range being hit by heavy artillery or missiles, Like the Iskandar. 

 

If we are speaking about the first weeks of the war I don't think NATO has enough time to set up its air defense systems into Ukraine, Giving the Russian armed forces a advantage because they will have already planned the assaults and the air defense and the logistics, Mean while NATO has to adjust its plans. In order for Russia to win a war against NATO in Ukraine, They have to take advantage of the deploy time before NATO can set up in Ukraine, My calculations which would take up to 3 weeks. If somehow the Russian armed forces cannot win against Ukraine in their offensive, And NATO is in full gear then there is only one choice. Iskandar spam all the bases not on the Redfor side 

Edited August 28, 2015 by VladimirTarasov

[John Kettler]

VladimirTarasov,

 

I don't know much about the Su-25SM, but my understanding is that the improvements are in avionics and targeting, not main aeronautical performance. Offhand, I see no way the SU-25SM somehow jumps into A-10 of any stripe payload capacity. I know far less about the Su-34 than I do about the Su-25SM, and I therefore have no real basis for comment. I am well aware Russia is the bee's knees when it comes to massive, all levels, integrated air and space defense. I spent 11+ years in military aerospace dealing with various aspects of that very system, to include offensive and defensive jamming, TBM strikes with submunitions, runway interdiction, aircraft shelter attack and more, together with a deeply disturbing thing called the Air Operation!

 

Would also like to thank you for exposing a previously unknown piece of Russian ordnance. The Iskander delivered Spam CBU!  Fill their bellies with this tasty treat, and your enemies won't resist! As for how long it would take for NATO to set up air defenses in Ukraine, you might wish to factor in this little development in a place called Poland.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/poland-opts-for-raytheons-patriot-air-and-missile-defense-system-1429635701

 

 You may also wish to factor in the awesome (and I'm not exaggerating) air defense and missile defense capabilities of USN Aegis equipped CG and DDGs, as well as the coverage zones for land based installations in NATO countries. One such AEGIS Ashore installation, in Romania, is already, or soon will be, operational and has the same missiles and tremendous reach the seagoing version does. In light of these and other things, I think your estimate of how long it'll take NATO to do something in terms of establishing an air defense is likely to be way off, and that's without factoring in, say, C-5s and C-17s surging across from the States with Patriots and other unpleasantness in their cavernous bellies. Also, a bunch of interested, but likely not publicity seeking, countries may decide to "donate" if Russia invades. Saudi Arabia, for example, has been quite generous in certain cases, such as providing a great deal of funding which was used to help arm the muj after Russia invaded Afghanistan in 1979 and the US was trying to find a way to do something about it. It just so happens that Saudi Arabia operates Patriots.

 

Regards,

 

John Kettler

[Sublime]

kettler you have to buy the unit before you can delete. you buy say 2 f15e.s then open the plus sign next to them and select one of the available two jets and delete it. or select remove whatever the damned actual name is (applies to any air in game and this is also how u delete ground though of course those formations are much bigger)

panzer of coursenthe analogy isnt accurate strictly its 70+ years old. I just mean ladt time the US and combined Allies faced significant and effective enemy air opposition including air to sea and air to ground. Also you obviously know we waaaay outnumbered the Germans too though not on the scale of your post. There just really isnt a modern analogy really that fits otherwise perhaps Yom KippirbWar or 7 Day War and I know a lotnless about them to be able to really be specific amd site actual times and places etc. fun fact first air to ground guided weapon was used by Germans off Salerno 1943 radio guided bombs they sank ships with in the landing area. caused havoc and if mass produced and a wayvto deal with jamming found could have been a seriousbseriousbproblem (more than they were) as it was after a couple months the Allies figured out how to jam the radio freq. in conjinction with increasing air superiority and CAP and insane AAA.

Other fun fact. The Allies covered up the sinking of a ship in harbor in Naples IIRC that had mistakenly been loaded with mustard gas. At first Allied HQ thought the Germans had upped the ante but then realized what had happened. Completely covered the incident up.

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

 

 

My calculations which would take up to 3 weeks.

 

That is an interesting assertion, although I believe it might be colored by your experience with the speed of the Russian army.  The ability of the US (and NATO allies riding in US equipment) to deploy to a region is something measured in days. Getting a lot of high priority stuff like PATRIOT into country is no great leap.  Also counting on long range missiles is interesting, it assumes hitting targets well outside the Ukraine, which might lead to a NATO response in kind, which as much as Russia claims to be ready to start popping nukes at random if anything touches the motherland, but on the other hand is Russia willing to start a nuclear war over a few burned out SU-24s?

 

I believe it is more likely that out of fear of being forced to either accept whoelsale attacks on Russian soil, or potentially trigger nuclear war, strikes against targets outside the Ukraine will be limited.  Better to lose in Ukraine than have the Russian people see the motherland bombed, or risk the apocalypse to ensure Donbassian freedom or whatever.  

 

Regardless if there's a rarity value assigned to US forces based on the operational enviroment, the rarity value for Russian CAS should be frankly several times the US rarity simply based on the airframes and complexity of defense (especially given the vast disparity in sensors and observation threshholds).  

 

Re: Sublime

 

I'm not arguing that a total lack of red aviation with stars and stripes forever.  The Germans in 1945 were still able to surge assets to achieve air parity and accomplish some bombing missions against tactical and operational assets.

 

Which is sort of my point though.  The Germans had to mobilize most of their remaining airframes to accomplish these sort of missions. Same deal for the Russians, as to get even a fairly modest package on target, it'll need a fairly large element to keep the NATO CAP off of them (and there's a huge numbers and capability gap in favor of NATO there), planes to jam or suppress air defense locations etc etc etc.  So while you're flying a strike package of say a dozen planes, it's actually supported by many, many more.

So once that occurs you're worried about the Russians gunning for key infrastructure, command posts, things that are worth committing high numbers of airframes and risking losing same.

CPT Panzersaurkrautwerfer's motley crew he picked up for this QB likely doesn't even merit a note in the Russian targeting order however, so in that regard the average NATO element has little to fear from air because the Russians will be forced to make their airforce "count," while on the other hand, the NATO disparity of numbers alone makes it not unreasonable to see some CAS, especially for priority missions (there's more USAF F-16s alone than Russian fighters of all types in service).

[Sublime]

I agree completely.  And you.re right re Germans in 45. Even though Op Bodenplatte turned out to be a huge mistake and distaster it makes a good example.

[MikeyD]

I believe somewhere buried in the manual backstory there's the assertion that initially the allied air power would be very busy with 'other tasks'. That would include attacks on air fields, deep interdiction, infrastructure destruction (bridges and railways etc), providing air defense coverage, even providing flank protection against Russian spoiling attacks. You're likely to see many more air strikes fifty km behind the front lines than one km in front of your own tanks. At least that was the working theory.

Lets not forget in a scenario such as this NATO wouldn't be focusing entirely on Ukraine. They'd be on alert and patrolling from northern Finland to eastern Turkey. And locations as far away as the Azores and Iceland.

Edited August 28, 2015 by MikeyD

[Codename Duchess]

That still makes it seem like rarity should be upped rather than price, with both US and especially Russia.

[VladimirTarasov]

A drill just recently called Dragoon ride, Showed that US armored vehicles going through Europe would take more time then originally expected, Break downs are common this doesn't show the US is weak or anything. It would take 3 weeks to prepare FOBs, Logistic routes, Medical bases, Defensive positions, Get all the troops ready for war, Secure safe zones to not risk and flank assaults. Also I am not saying I know anything about it, But I am more then sure that there are sabotage groups in Europe especially in Poland and Romania for certain conflicts like this. You can't just say "US is strong it has the best NATO logistics" Well sure it does, But there are certain things you can't skip through, And say C-5s and C-17s will do the trick. 

By the way, Poland can buy air defenses but you forget the almighty Iskandar-M stronk crew which can launch from Kaliningrad onto bases. Sure NATO will strike back too but the damage will be great for both sides. I don't want to fuel a hate war, As I wouldn't want to cause hate on the forum. But if NATO did mobilize in full gear it would be, Cold war gone hot, Even if nukes aren't used per say in the start of it heavy missiles will be used. 

 

And just a quick reminder, I don't wish to start a forum war, If you disagree with me please give me the facts and I will gladly change my perspective. I can share my knowledge on how Russian logistics would work in the scenario that is given in game. 

[MikeyD]

Actually, during internal discussions about restricting US airpower I had brought up precisely the likelihood of airfield sabotage and whatnot as a mitigating factor. A fully-fuelled KC-135 tanker plane furiously burning at the end of a major runway would cause a knock-on effect through air availability chain. Not to mention an AWACS getting knocked down.

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

You're missing the point.  In terms of what's relevant to this discussion, the establishment of a reliable air defense network via PATRIOT, fixed wing assets, and other NATO ADA systems will happen well before the three week mark.  It may take some weeks to have all the hospitals, division HQs, motorpools, MWR tents set up, but it isn't like there is absolutely no combat power until the CSM's parking placard is precisely 90 degrees to the ground.  

 

I worked a number of exercises, and in a variety of places that revolved around the ability to rapidly deploy and mobilize forces.  Putting up a ADA network, and flying in fixed wing assets to existing NATO airbases within range of the combat zone would be done in a matter of days, and Dragoon Ride had nothing to do with showing the "speed" of US forces and everything to do with showing the locals they would not be abandoned to the Russians.  It makes very little sense as an exercise in mobility simply because of the routes taken, and was done in a manner not to too annoy the locals.  

 

If it came time to rapidly flow NATO forces into Ukraine it'd be a very, very hostile air space to anything with a Red Star in short order, which gets to the point of my earlier comments.  The airspace would be hostile and difficult for NATO air to operate in.  It will be as lethal as the surface of the sun for Russian aviation barring exceptional measures to establish local parity.

 

So in that regard any reasonable observer could say that the end Russian user wouldn't expect to see much at all, while the NATO end user might from time to time receive fixed wing assets.

 

Either way it's strictly my belief Russia has far more to lose by expanding the war, as once you've hit Germany and Poland why not bomb Russia?  And while Russia's air defense network is vast, so is Russia, and it is full of things that react poorly to blowing up.

 

The safest way to prevent Vladivostok from being the graveyard of the Russian Pacific Fleet, the return of Konigsberg or even something truly outrageous like the Japanese flag snapping smartly in the breeze over the Kurils is to keep the war contained to the Ukraine.  Whatever benefit could be gained from striking NATO bases outside the region is vastly overwhelmed by the harm that can be, and certainly would be caused by giving the west the justification to widen the war.  Time and time again the one thing that'll make the west bloody minded will be believing a few easy cheap strikes will keep it cowed, or a short daring campaign will sew it all up nicely. 

It's simple strategy.  The spartans didn't leave Xenophon because it was the most favorable place for them to fight a war.  Russia might stand a chance if it kept the war tight, contained, bloody and focused in pro-Russian regions.  Once you're dumping missiles into Eastern Europe there's no longer a matter of simply accepting that the Donbass is basically a tumor on the Ukraine, it's a matter of a population that already despises Russians now having a reason to hang Russians from lightpoles, and the justification to do so.

 

Same deal in regards to unconventional warfare.  The Russians can send some terrorists into Eastern Europe.  I imagine their success will depend on how long it is before the Russian immigrant population in that country is rounded up (as again, they're unloved and largely unwanted).  It might do some damage to the NATO war effort.

And someone could also write a blank check to the Saudis and given them a wink and a nod and set the Caucasus ablaze. It's all a matter of retaliation and the ability to do harm.  Expanding into unrestrained asymmetric warfare is much more dangerous for the Russians than it is for western proxies (who might just set Chechnya on fire again because Allah Akbar without any nudging or desire from the west).

 

So in that regard, I believe Russian capabilities will be limited simply to avoid moving the war from a struggle over a lesser failed satellite state to something that might actually gravely damage Russia over the long run.  A narrow fight keeps the damage limited, and at the end of the day the most likely case of a small, not wider war is some manner of cease fire which will likely not be abject surrender even in the event of Russian defeat on the battlefield.  It's easier to spin that into a victorious war to defend all Russians everywhere, than even winning in Donbass but facing a renewed Islamic insurgency, infrastructure damage, and watching various Russian assets get fairly well mauled elsewhere, AND risking nuclear escalation (as Russian deterrence isn't worth anything without a response to attacks on its homeland).  

 

So in that regard, it's likely to be an unwanted war, fought in a box with various machines and formations of men fed into it and well mauled.  The CMBS scenario captures this pretty well.  The ability of NATO to press home air attacks likely greatly outpaces Russian ability to press home attacks inside that box.  If we're being realistic Russian fixed wing should be super-rare and into the realm of APS equipped US vehicles rarity.  

[VladimirTarasov]

Fair enough, I agree with some things of what you said, I would argue about a few things but I am too tired, I will reply later more detailed though

[womble]

That still makes it seem like rarity should be upped rather than price, with both US and especially Russia.

Which is exactly the current situation. It is the rarity cost that stopped Mr Kettler buying a brace of Strike Eagles to support a small action (though now he knows he can buy 'em one at a time, perhaps he can squeeze one in).

[John Kettler]

womble,

 

Not at 3399 points of my 6820 total budget for Medium, Probe, I won't. It might (note conditional) be worth doing at Standard Rarity, but then I'd have to be quite concerned about running into any number of Russian air defense weapons and losing the plane. Let's say it was doable to get a single F-15E for 1133 points. What else can I get in the way of fire support which isn't so brittle? 

 

(155) Self-propelled howitzer platoon 736

(120) Heavy Mortar Section (x2)         318

                                                          ____

 

                                                        1054

 

Not bad. Three separately targetable artillery assets, each one with Excalibur!  Turns out the numbers, when you've actually bought, are a bit better than that.

 

(155) Self-propelled howitzer platoon 736

(120) Hvy Mortar Section (x 2)            304

(60)  Lt. Mortar Section                        58

                                                         ____

                                                        1098

 

Four separately targetable assets, three with Excalibur, one with very short response time. Some tweaking to performance is possible. Downside? Firepower doesn't come smashing down all at once, as it does in an airstrike, but this is persistent combat power, has considerable duration and can be used to hit many targets as long as there is ammo to do so. 

 

Regards,

 

John Kettler

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

 

 

Fair enough, I agree with some things of what you said, I would argue about a few things but I am too tired, I will reply later more detailed though

 

Look, I just want to make it clear, war would be terrible for all parties involved.  I'm deeply concerned at some of the saber rattling that comes out of Russia though and the actions towards many of the former Soviet/Warsaw nations.  I can assure you no NATO country wants war with Russia, but the fury and destruction unleashed by provoking NATO will be terrible, and while the west may seem soft, historically a lot of the concerns about collateral damage, human rights and the like go out the window when we've been threatened or attacked.

 

For me it's important to make it understood that NATO is not a paper tiger, and while it isn't what it was in 1990, it's still a sleeping giant.  The reckless military adventurism in the Ukraine, and the actions of the Russian government are running a risk of awakening that giant, and we'll all be worse off for the end result.  

 

On topic:

I tend to prefer 155 MM and rotary wing, but fixed wing offers a lot better assured destruction of point targets (like especially annoying buildings) and unlike even precision artillery, the first shot first kill capability of fixed wing is pretty effective.  

 

It's a tool.  Just as your screwdriver is a bad hammer, a lot comes back with finding the right use for it and asking yourself if it's the equipment you need. 

 

In that regards the only asset of the three you can buy for the price of an Eagle I find is worth a damn is the SP guns.  At the scale of battle you're whipping that many points around on fire support, two 60 MM and two 120 MM tubes doesn't do much.

[Battlefront.com]

I can assure you no NATO country wants war with Russia, but the fury and destruction unleashed by provoking NATO will be terrible, and while the west may seem soft, historically a lot of the concerns about collateral damage, human rights and the like go out the window when we've been threatened or attacked.

This, and this...

 

For me it's important to make it understood that NATO is not a paper tiger, and while it isn't what it was in 1990, it's still a sleeping giant.  The reckless military adventurism in the Ukraine, and the actions of the Russian government are running a risk of awakening that giant, and we'll all be worse off for the end result.

Hitler and his top generals dismissed Britain's ability to resist German might. They were wrong. When the US got involved it too was dismissed as "soft". When German forces first encountered American forces in North Africa, they figured their assumptions were correct because initial combat was unfavorable to the Americans. But within a few months Germany lost North Africa, three quarters of a million men, had it's only significant ally invaded, which prompted it to surrender, and then it got progressively worse from there. Never mistake the West's reluctance to fight war with its ability to fight one forced upon it.

Back to the point about air support costs...

CM is by its nature a tactical wargame. Large amounts of artillery and air support unbalances the tactical play. Since the tactical combat is why the game exists, it doesn't make sense to encourage undermining it. Especially for Quick Battles, which is where purchase points matter most. While one can certainly make an argument that air or artillery support should be cheaper so that it could be used either more frequently or in greater numbers, it's not an argument that holds much value to the tactical gameplay aspects of Combat Mission. And therefore, it's not an argument we have ever viewed favorably. Which is a good thing

One also needs to keep in mind the difference in potential lethality. A Sniper Team, for example, is disproportionally expensive because (if used correctly) it can cause a LOT more problems for the enemy than two guys with standard rifles. Air support is a similar thing. It's potential to make a major dent in the enemy force is disproportional to its purchase cost. Factor this in with other issues and the combined logic dictates that Air Support be kept fairly pricey.

Steve

[MikeyD]

In past titles I've created a few 'demonstration scenarios', unleashed the full fury of rocket artillery or airpower on a map just as an exercise in destruction. They were a hoot to witness but pretty much unplayable after the carnage was inflicted.

 

Airpower in CMBS is *free* if you simply construct your own scenario. There is no points restriction in scenario design. As many air assets and spotters as you heart desires. To save the effort of map making you can pick a QB map, rename it, populate it with whomever you like and drop it into the scenarios folder. I play as many thrown-together scenarios as I play QB games. If you construct them in batches and let them sit for awhile before playing your memory will fade about how the opposing forces are set up. 

[General Jack Ripper]

Factor this in with other issues and the combined logic dictates that Air Support be kept fairly pricey.

Steve

 

John, I think you're missing out on the "other factors".

 

You can target Air assets anywhere on the map without LOS.

Aircraft are capable of spotting targets and engaging them independently.

Aircraft can loiter over the area and make multiple attack runs without needing to call them in multiple times.

You do not require direct observation of enemy forces to hit them with precision air-delivered missiles and bombs.

 

These are the type of things artillery simply cannot do, and that's why aircraft and helicopters are much more expensive.

Not to mention the most important factor of all:

 

When playing against a human opponent, and they hear jets going by overhead, their first reaction is "Oh Sh*t!"

You can't put a price on that.