>>28475405 As far as tactical battlespace? If you don't have air superiority against a conventional opponent (say, contested), you're in for a very, very long day. If they have air superiority, your day just got a lot shorter, because you just got a lot deader.
>>28476377 Depends on how overwhelming your air is. Generally, no. You have to be somewhere in the same ballpark for it to all work together. That's why it's called combined arms, and not air force and friends. The airforce/naval aviation links in the chain are extremely important though. Almost lynchpin level important.
>>28476734 While I agree the bombing campaign against ISIS isn't achieving the progress they had initially hoped for, it isn't like bombing a well-organized military like the U.S. did with Kuwait and Iraq in the early 1990's. I kinda feel bad for the U.S. getting a lot of bad press for air strikes against independent forces and pro-Russia/Syria forces in the area. Friendly areas and hostile areas change from day to day and all look the same from 30000' looking through the targeting pod.
>>28478123 Meanwhile zero foreign capital, zero foreign development, zero foreign tech exchange and outside of oil almost no prospects for sophisticated outside trade. The very best tech (not the fighters the actual tech of the PAK-FA) of the aerospace industry is now being sold to curry for fifty cents on the dollar.
>>28481237 >air power would largely be negated by anti-air systems Why do you take the time out of your day to post such garbage online? >Vietnam >Kuwait >Iraq All heavily defended with anti-air missile systems, yet air power was still a major factor in every conflict
>>28481327 Every serious war won in history was won because the winner outspent his enemies. War is the testing of a nation at it's very core. There's a reason the USSR went bankrupt trying to stay in Afghanistan but the US barely even strained it's economy deploying millions of men across the entire Middle East over an entire decade. The US spends more on handouts than the Russians do on their military. You bet your ass the US can outspend their enemies 100 to 1, they've done so in every war since the Civil War.
India's getting 5 S-400 battalions plus missiles, etc for $6 billion USD. Each battalion has about 8 launchers. Theoretically a single F-35 or F-22 with a full internal load of SDBs could take out a battalion, but that's under perfect conditions.
I've run some wargaming simulations (Command: Modern Air / Naval Operations), but the biggest issue that anti-air defences will have is standoff weapons. If an AARGM, JSM, etc comes at the S-400, it needs to neutralise it for self-preservation. With a slow reloading rate and a slow pack-up time (they advertise "fast" as being able to move in half an hour), once an S-400 has expended it's missiles, it's easy pickings. You might try to move some launchers before you run out of missiles, but that opens up a gap in your defences and allows NATO, etc to swoop in with air superiority and hunt down those launchers. With F-35s running around with their EODAS and Big SAR radars and satellites scanning the battlefield, they won't last long.
If you're the stronger side in a conflict, you air force is your main advantage that you want to abuse as much as possible. However, if you are the weaker side, your air force is often pretty much useless and will probably get fragged to zog in the beginning of the conflict for no value.
>>28475405 Obviously it depends on the enemy and the type of war you're engaged in.
Against modern enemies, especially during symmetric warfare, air power is practically everything (obviously excluding nukes and politics). Once you own the sky, their armour becomes highly vulnerable, once their armour is gone, you armour and mounted infantry can dominate.
Against asymmetric enemies, relying on guerrilla warfare, air power is still important, because it gets you the most real-time intel and allows you to blow up dug in enemies, but you obviously need to worry more about having a ground presence; clearing buildings, searching forests and caves, etc.
Wars have been and always will be won by boots on the ground.
Infantry and armour are the decisive factors in any CONVENTIONAL war, everything else is secondary and is geared to giving those ground troops the best support they can in order for them to reach their objectives unhindered.
>>28481706 To be fair, if they're about $1 billion (let's say $800m) per battalion >>28481466, and that $240k figure >>28481384 is right, then that indicates to me that the Nebo, etc radars they're using must be pretty damn expensive and good for destroying, even if the mission is suicidal.
>>28481745 MANPADs (even modern day ones) have a range of like 5km. Even if that was vertical, 5km = 15,000ft. Most fighters cruise at >20,000ft and some like the F-35 are meant to cruise at >40,000ft.
>>28475482 I'm not trying to be a pedantic asshole or anything, but logistics, intel, and actual fighting are easiest to accomplish using air power. Technically speaking, it'd be a lot more difficult to spread propaganda without satellites.
>>28481722 Unless strategic air strikes destroy any capability for your military to mount a ground attack, or even mobilize for war in the first place, which is what happened when Iraq never even got to lose a war against Israel in the 80's. Shut down the third largest land military in the world with a single air strike.
But, I mean, you're right. The total supremacy of ground troops is why ever modern country's primary focus is on improving air power and controlling their own skies.
inb4 you can just shoot planes down, tell that to Iraqi SAM site operators who refused to turn on their tracking radars because they knew it meant certain death from anti-radar munitions fired from fucking planes
>>28478146 Nah, just look at the force ratio of ground troops. Taliban simly have many more, and the West - through a combination of political necessity and military stupidity - has fallen to the fallacy of thinking quality will beat quantity every time, even though WWII, Vietnam, the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and many other wars provided ample evidence for the opposite. That fallacy is also the principal reason for the West's dangerous overemphasis on air power.
>>28483948 I knew this was coming. I left it in there anyway.
Although, now with the F-35B, ESGs become a hell of a lot more capable of operating away from the big boy fleet carriers. With it, the USN/USMC basically gets mini-nimitz groups with a little help from ground based AWACS or eventually an AWACS variant for the Osprey. For low intensity conflicts that's pretty huge.
>>28484006 Because in the history of modern air warfare there's been a single instance of SAMs actually denying airspace to a capable airforce, amirite?
>>28484031 >What is Vietnam? S-75 shooted down over 3000 of American planes. Just over 250. What the fuck are you smoking?
Furthermore, did it stop the USAF/USN/USMC from imposing their will? The only considerations which forced US air forces targeting and ROE were political. SAMs did jack shit to keep US planes from hitting targets at will.
>>28484031 The word modern imply that you are excluding the advent of something. Vietnam was the first time SAM(guided) were fielded, in war.
>The Soviet Union supplied 7,658 SAMs to North Vietnam, and their defense forces conducted about 5,800 launches, usually in multiples of three. By the war's end, about 205 aircraft had been lost to North Vietnamese surface-to-air missiles.
The biggest thing holding back US Airpower in Vietnam was Rules of Engagement.
When Nixon peeled back the ROE, shit got done. It was too little, too late at that point, but it shows how things could have gone down if the USAF had been allowed to use its full strength from the beginning.
>>28484031 They didn't actually deny the use of the airspace. They just curtailed the ability of strike packages to hit their targets by destroying planes, forcing them to drop munitions and turn back to not get hit, or forcing aircrews into sub-optimal and inaccurate attacks.
>>28476377 That's a difficult question. I would say that with a sufficient air power advantage, you can severely limit the enemy's ability to maneuver with vehicles. Is that enough?
We actually have an example where this DID actually happen. The Korean War. That didn't stop the Chinese, but then again, aviation of the time is nowhere near as capable as it is now. However, I would still agree with the conclusion that one still requires a decent land force in order to win the day.
>>28484162 It's called "shot down", not "shooted down".
And no, the US had dominance of the air over North Vietnam at the time. Simply put, the North Vietnamese had to use pretty much all of their available SAMs to achieve the limited amount of kills they got in Linebacker II, and this is despite the fact that US bomber crews went full retard. Their jammers were actually effective against the SAMs, but they were trained for nuclear weapoons- to drop their bombs and then turn away immediately. That brought the jammers off axis, which obviously leads to more SAM hits.
>>28484140 31 total lost, and only 17 of those in combat. You were saying?
>>28484162 >all aircraft losses were to SAMs >all SAMs are S-75s anon...
The US lost just over 2,000 fixed wing aircraft in combat in Vietnam, and the majority of those were to AAA.
>>28484162 >The Linebacker 2 is also mentioned there as the biggest failure. Anon, what the fuck are you smoking? Linebacker 2 brought the NVA to their knees and to the negotiating table in Paris. Are you really this ignorant?
He clearly said that the documentary was from the perspective of the Soviets. Of course they would view Linebacker II as a failure because it proved that the US could deliver a devasting attack with strategic bombers through Soviet-designed air defenses.
>>28484269 That's TECHNICALLY a second conflict that began after the Vietnam War ended.
And it's "Strategic", not "strategical". Linebacker II was a strategic victory for the US, as it brought about US aims- that being a cessation of the conflict so the US could GTFO, as they were done with it.
>>28484269 Look, I'm not one of those morons who claims Vietnam as a geopolitical victory for the US and allies. But you have to be blind to believe that the NVA won Vietnam through any sort of conventional military might. They were flattened by a US military which was politically handcuffed. Every major engagement the NVA fought toe to toe with the US, they lost. If the US had the political will to close off Cambodia and Laos and then actually stick around to base South Vietnam, it would still be two countries. No question.
>>28484016 >Because in the history of modern air warfare there's been a single instance of SAMs actually denying airspace to a capable airforce, amirite?
But the thing is, if you are the defender in a conflict (so pretty much always on the much weaker side, unless the attackers leadership is just mad), air forces are even worse at that aspect.
During cold war, only 3% of the stronger sides air casualties caused by weaker sides fighters, 97% from ground based AA. From the last 30 years, the numbers are 0% and 100%. So, if you are not part of great military alliance or great military power, air forces are just expensive scrap metal.
>>28484616 >During cold war, only 3% of the stronger sides air casualties caused by weaker sides fighters, 97% from ground based AA. From the last 30 years, the numbers are 0% and 100%. So, if you are not part of great military alliance or great military power, air forces are just expensive scrap metal. Not really. You just don't want to pick a fight with nations that are a whole hell of a lot more powerful than you.
>>28484616 >So, if you are not part of great military alliance or great military power, air forces are just expensive scrap metal. But it's rare that a great power/coalition is fucking your shit up unless you've gone full potato on something. NOTHING would help in that case. Air assets are extremely useful against other regional powers both as deterrents and mission fulfillers against peer powers. There are plenty of examples of this just in the 20th century. If you've pissed off a power an order of magnitude more capable than you, you're dogshit either way unless you've a comparable power at your back.
>>28484616 >During cold war, only 3% of the stronger sides air casualties caused by weaker sides fighters, 97% from ground based AA. From the last 30 years, the numbers are 0% and 100%. Does that include all the hueys lost in Vietnam? If so its not that weird.
>>28484910 Yes, term "planes and helicopters" was used if I remember correctly. The numbers were mentioned in an article written by former Finland's "inspector of air defense" (don't know the english equivalent) Ahto Lappi who has also written books about air defence history.
>>28475405 Yes. Anyone saying otherwise is infantry and deluded. (why they cry I need muh air support nao plz) when they get fucked. And arty can be crazy off, cannot be deployed anywhere, and has to be based behind the ground force. The end.
>>28485228 >Looking at the ATOs from the Gulf War, we find that over 90% of the targets were within range of an ATACMS. ATACMS is not the proper platform to do it. There's not enough mass. The Army pushed the fire support coordination line so far forward that the Air Force couldn't be used to its full extent. It was only after it was pulled back that the REALLY heavy losses were inflicted on the Iraqis.
Given the cost ratio of MLRS trucks to 4.5gen interdiction aircraft...there could be plenty.
>The Army pushed the fire support coordination line so far forward that the Air Force couldn't be used to its full extent.
Exactly. The AF's superior speed and range was rendered irrelevant by its slower OODA loop.
The USAF has consistently proven unable and unwilling to fix this.
The answer to USAF slowness and bureaucratic incompetence (and cost overruns) is organically controlled land-based platforms. Mass issues can easily by overcome through the simple expedient of building more, which is possible because land-based systems are OOM cheaper than air-based systems.
>>28485822 Do you know how little a single ATACMS does and how few there are? You cannot generate enough mass to properly punish an enemy. ATACMS are for high value targets only. In fact, their best use is to enable air power.
>>28486138 No, there couldn't. That's a fantasy. And let us nevermind the fact that a single plane in a single sortie can do more than an ATACMS ever could.
>blah blah, AF sucks No, you don't understand in the slightest. The US Army pushed the FSCL so far forward specifically to deny the AF the ability to actually respond in a quick manner. Inside the FSCL, the AF is hampered by a need to clear literally every single mission with the Army. You want to talk about OODA loops, that's the problem right there. Outside the FSCL, the AF had pretty much free reign. But by pushing the FSCL so far forward, the Army created a situation where there were extremely limited assets that were able to do a damn thing, and in doing so fucked themselves completely. When the FSCL was finally pulled in to a more reasonable distance, the AF was proven to be massively more powerful.
THAT is the lesson we learned in Desert Storm, and yet you seem to have drawn the opposite conclusion. Are you stupid?
Doing the math: -2 GLCMs per launcher -8 launchers per platoon -24 launchers per company.
One Captain, 80 dudes, 48 simultaneous launches. Servicing 300 targets in two hours. If planned properly, all TOTs within 20 minutes. That's the entire target list for Instant Thunder handled by a single captain with resupply, and it costs 300 million for ammo and 10 million for the unit.
>>28484016 >With it, the USN/USMC basically gets mini-nimitz groups US assault ships have been used in the mini-carrier role exactly once in their entire history. That aren't normally going to have very many F-35B aboard.
>>28487199 And how much does it cost to maintain the F-15E To train the pilot To maintain the airfields all over the world To maintain massive bases with tens of thousands of personnel to protect & service them
Only 3600 ATACMS were bought You buy that in larger numbers and that price would drop down to like 100,000
They were all stationary targets, anon. Warden's five rings.
Regarding arty, obvs the answer is UAVs.
>>28488029 GPS-INS has about 15m CEP, lasers 1m, IIR/EO 1m.
The dumb bus moving it near the target before guidance takes over doesn't matter.
>>28487350 The ironic thing is that in COIN, masses of fast-movers are worthless; while in high-intensity peer-on-peer war, masses of fast movers are more expensive than a huge stock of missiles that does the same thing.
The scenario where planes are useful is a steady diet of medium wars, where the owner knocks over some smaller conventional powers at a rate of 1.5x a decade or thereabouts.
The US is in one of the few use cases where masses of jets are worth a damn.
In the defined, traditional, doctrinal sense where "Air power" meant game-changing strategic massacre - ICBMs accomplished it.
Manned planes? ICBMs made them obsolete for air power. Today they're mere tactical support for the ground troops who actually occupy cities.
I quote some famous UASF generals, men who knew what they were talking about:
>"This favoritism [of pursuit planes] produced a rapid growth of this flying specialty, but at the same time it obscured the problem of national defense and prevented a correct understanding of what the command in the air consists of."
>“when satisfactory ground to ground missiles become standard equipment, the need for both air to ground and air to air weapons will be definitely decreased. Of great importance is the long range ground to ground guided missile. This will be the strategic long range bombardment airplane of the future."
>>28488297 >GPS-INS has about 15m CEP, lasers 1m, IIR/EO 1m. >The dumb bus moving it near the target before guidance takes over doesn't matter. That's of course assuming the target is where you think it is. Seeing as how we're going with targets that aren't spotted by other assets, GPS-INS and lasers are out of the question, leaving only the camera based guidance package. Which, to my knowledge, is not on any SSM.
And hell yes it matters. There's a difference between getting shot down en route to your target and not. Of being detected before you reach a certain distance or not.
UAVs are not going to be great if you're not fielding any aircraft. If you're giving the enemy total authority to do what they please until you've dealt with their IADs, they can target and kill drones with impunity.
>>28484153 I've flown a few times, but I'm not licensed. I ran out of disposable income to keep taking lessons haha. I've flown a decent amount of single-engine fixed-wing, 152, 172 and Katana (kek), and rotary once in an R22.
>>28488592 >Air power can't defeat sea power Air threats are the greatest threats against naval based forces. >Sea power can't defeat ground power Sea power can certainly aid with land conflicts. Hell, the trend for the last 30 years has been in improving missile, gun and radar/communications equipment to assist land operations. Not to mention that carriers were used extensively in every war the US has fought in the last 30 years as force projection against ground units >Ground power can't defeat air power Admittedly other aircraft and ships(especially those carrying aircraft) are probably greater threats to opposing aircraft than ground based installations because of the density of detection equipment and weapons. However, I think it's safe to say that 'ground power' has repeatedly been a key threat to aircraft since vietnam because military aircraft operate over ground most of the time and ground based installations, vehicles and MANPADs have become pretty fucking good.
>>28486861 Oh snap, good call, I must have remembered the "in the las X-years..." part wrong (would make sense, since going 30 years back would go into the cold war era, which would weirdly overlap his two statistics statements). I wonder if it was just 20 years or more specific number, at best I'm probably in the vicinity the source material when the thread has already died (if I haven't lost it already).
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the shown content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows their content, archived. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content, then use the post's [Report] link! If a post is not removed within 24h contact me at email@example.com with the post's information.