Could it be said that air power is the most important aspect

>>28475405
I don't know. Try saying it.

propaganda > logistics > intel > actual fighting

>>28475482

Deterrence trumps all of that, aka having nukes. You can have a shit army and no logistics but as long as you have 5k no one is messing with you (see Russia).

>>28475405
Nope. Finances and legislation are. Look at the shit Russia's in - without the West needing to fire a single round at it.

>>28475405
It is a critical aspect of modern warfare, and arguably the first step in any military offensive. Most important? I dunno

>>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.

>>28475671

So you could be inferior on land (shit MBTs, poorly trained conscripts) but as long as you have air superiority you have won the war?

>>28475405
no, hit detection in modern warfare has always been the most important, connection too.

Yes.

>>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.

>>28475405
Judging by how unaffected ISIS is by superpowers bombing them I'd say air power is the least important. But they have the best marketing.

File: image.jpg (510KB, 2000x1000px) Image search: [Google]

510KB, 2000x1000px

>>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.

>>28475588
yeah yeah, selling shit for dollars while rearming the military with weak as fuck rubles, really painful

File: running a train on noel.jpg (3MB, 2999x2000px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 2999x2000px

Friendship is the most important aspect of modern warfare.

>>28476734
Judging by how unaffected the Taliban is by superpowers pushing ground troops I'd say they are the least important.

>>28475405
It will always be Naval power

>>28475482
>>28475558
>propaganda
>deterrence

I always thought the two were related. Do you have nukes, or do other people think you have nukes? Not much difference, if someone thinks you are crazy enough to use them, like Best Korea.

>>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.

Pathetic.

>>28478175
But air is one of the two main offensive elements of US conventional naval power. The other being subs. Air is integral to naval power now.

File: image.jpg (43KB, 609x435px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 609x435px

>>28475405
Field artillery. King of battle.

>>28479083
>field artillery
>relevant
choose one faggot

Functioning nukes > everything

Not really
Air power is actually a meme practiced by westerners because their governments/people are pussies who want "safe war" with zero casualities

In a peer conflict, air power would largely be negated by anti-air systems which will always been cheaper.

>>28481237
Found the Ruskie.

>>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

>>28481237
>In a peer conflict, air power would largely be negated by anti-air systems which will always been cheaper.
Two words:
WILD
WEASEL

>>28481291
And in all those conflicts the US massively outspent the enemy to fund their air war

In an actually even fight, you can't outspend your enemy 100 to 1

>>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.

>>28481237
The TER for the S400 (the truck with the tubes, not even the missiles themselves) costs $100 million itself. How is that cheaper?

>>28481369
Not even close; TER is $240,000
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S-400_(missile)

>>28476439
This, end of the day grunts hold clay. Flyboys can drop as many bombs as you can supply, but the whole point of fighting conventional warfare is to take territory.

>>28481357
You can't then talk about the "success" of airpower, when anything could have done the same thing

>>28481442
I'm just gonna call you a retard and leave it at that.
Get out of the NA Dota servers Ivan.

>>28481369
http://sputniknews.com/military/20151217/1031883722/india-purchase-s400-deal.html

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.

F-35s can't occupy cities.

If you mean conventional war, maybe. But that isn't ever going to be the case any time soon.

In modern combat (read: occupation), infantry is most important.

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.

>>28479083
let me tell you about ukarine

>>28479083
>>28481646 ment for >>28479105

>>28479083
only in ww1

>>28481369
how stupid are you

File: 1433661172966.png (114KB, 312x303px) Image search: [Google]

114KB, 312x303px

Definitely not faggot

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.

>>28481722
nuh-uh
If you spend 10+ times what it costs to arm and field those troops in airplanes.
They can force the ground troops to hide!

Such is the strength of air power

>>28481731
but nigs
if those infantry have MANPADs then those aircraft are in trouble

doubly so if they have good equipment and not cold war era iglas or something

File: grillz.jpg (60KB, 646x778px) Image search: [Google]

60KB, 646x778px

>>28481731
>>28481745
Also aircraft cannot loiter on station indefinitely
you can't hold real estate with aircraft son

>>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.

>>28481770
I'm talking about MANPAD use for CAS as the way that guys talking it seems that you wouldn't be using precision munitions at 40 000 if you're planning to replace the army with air entirely

>>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

>>28475405
Considering most wars since WW2 have been one by poorly armed armies with little to no air power, I would have to say no. Apparently Toyota trucks is all you need.

>>28481693
>only in ww1

based retard

>>28481926
>Unless strategic air strikes destroy any capability for your military to mount a ground attack, or even mobilize for war in the first place
Citation: Highway of death

Yeah definitely, I agree


>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
Was unaware of that.

>>28481305
Wild Weasel proves it. It only worked because America had more planes than Vietnam had SAM sites.

>>28475482
I would think Intel trumps all because you may not even require military action to modify behavior.

>>28482124
Nobody has as many SAM sites as the US has 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.

>>28481845
No one in their right mind thinks replacing the army with the air force is anything but retarded. Stop being baited.

Air force/USN/USMC air is all extremely important, but it's one more moving piece in an entire machine that has to all work together.

>>28482237
This post is so rife with ignorant starting assumptions I don't know where to begin. It's like someone educated themselves on military history in the 20th century based solely on /k/ memes.

>>28482237
>Nah, just look at the force ratio of ground troops. Taliban simly have many more

>Talbian
>45,000-60,000

>ISAF
>130,000
>ANA
>180,000

>>28483296
>It's like someone educated themselves on military history in the 20th century based solely on /k/ memes.
Wait..Is that not how it's done?

>>28476439
>That's why it's called combined arms, and not air force and friends.

this made me chuckle

File: 1380783534941.jpg (81KB, 595x418px) Image search: [Google]

81KB, 595x418px

>>28483309
>he thinks ANA fights on the side of ISAF

>>28483334
Most do, some don't.

Oh I'm sorry is this supposed to be meme-slinging rather than actual information.

>>28483286
Well... not the USMC

>>28475482
>economic > propaganda > logistics > intel > actual fighting
ftfu

>>28475405
Until you get smoked by s-400

>>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?

>>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?

What is Vietnam? S-75 shooted down over 3000 of American planes.

>>28484006

>What is SEAD

Depending on ground-based defenses to stop aircraft is always a losing proposition, sure you might get a few planes but not enough to make a difference.

This is exactly why aircraft carriers replaced battleships as King of the Sea.

>>28484031
And the Americans still bombed across the entire region with impunity

racking up kills =/= denying airspace

>>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.

File: Operation Linebacker II.jpg (37KB, 512x385px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 512x385px

>>28484031

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.

>>28481722
>Not artillery

I bet you think that the 100+ tubes per kilometer of attack frontage the Red Army could muster for the Northern European Plain and Fulda Gap were for show.

>>28481999
Not even highway of death. Hitting fuel and ammo dumps will destroy the ability of a mechanized force to fight as sure as destroying their tanks with Hellfires and TOWs

>>28484062
>SAMs did jack shit to keep US planes from hitting targets at will.
>all those B-52s lost to SAMs
And you even consider B-52 was your symbol of power

>>28475405

As Napoleon said, "artillery dominates, infantry occupies."

The US is REALLY good at the first part.

>>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.

Get a basic education before you open your mouth.

any other /k/ommandos actual pilots?

rotor fag reporting in

>>28484140
>B-52
>not the retard huge navy or icbms

Bruh....

>>28484062
> Just over 250. What the fuck are you smoking?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aircraft_losses_of_the_Vietnam_War

>>28484102
> Operation Linebacker II.jpg

There is a good Russian documentary about Vietnam war with interview of Soviet Air-Defence advices. The Linebacker 2 is also mentioned there as the biggest failure.

https://youtu.be/FtLFU2UjyNs?t=38m41s


Honestly, it's not air domination when your aircraft can be shooted down in every minute.
The US just had more aircraft to lose.

>>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.

>>28476964
>all look the same from 30000' looking through the targeting pod.
But this is the problem, isn't it? If you don't know exactly what you're hitting, why are you dropping a bomb on it?

>>28484140
You remind me of one of those Slavs that thinks NATO got its ass kicked by the Serbs because two aircraft were lost.

>>28484162
>shooted
>Russian documentary

>>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

>we got a few bombers that means we totally stopped them guys!

According to Wikipedia, 17 B-52s were lost in combat during Vietnam. Considering how many years US was involved in Vietnam, that's not a huge number.

>>28484162
>shooted down
We have an educated expert here.

>>28484162
Where does this say anything about the S-75 shooting down 3000 planes?

>>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?

File: Air Losses.png (38KB, 694x304px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 694x304px

>>28484164

This is the official count for aircraft lost by the USAF in Vietnam.

>>28484220

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.

Reading comprehension anon.

>>28484231
And?

File: shrug.jpg (23KB, 500x310px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 500x310px

>>28484256

People in this thread were talking about the subject of USAF aircraft losses during Vietnam, so I thought I'd contribute what I had?

File: Americans escaping Vietnam.jpg (161KB, 780x511px) Image search: [Google]

161KB, 780x511px

>>28484220
> Linebacker 2 brought the NVA to their knees and to the negotiating table in Paris. Are you really this ignorant?

Dude, Vietnam war ended when the South Vietnam was liberated by the North.

The achievement of Linebeaker 2 can't be for serious considered as strategical victory.

>>28484231
Okay, here's the problem. That number includes helicopters.

File: 1441506600645.gif (1MB, 294x240px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 294x240px

It's incredibly important. Just like every other branch of combined warfare.

>>28484264
Then why did you quote me?

>>28484278

Cause it felt like a logical place to put it?

>>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.

File: 1443311434957.png (88KB, 500x375px) Image search: [Google]

88KB, 500x375px

>ESM detects your aircraft's shitty radars from over the horizon

Nah man, the days of massed bombing raids are long gone.

>>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.

>>28484285
Then your logic was way off. I wasn't even talking about that subject.

>>28484301

I'm sorry anon. It won't happen again.

>>28484296
>radiating
There's your problem right there.

>>28484231
It's okay anon, I'll support you. This is a good point against the guy that claimed that S-75's (SAM's) shot down 3000 US planes in >>28484031


Granted he's a fucking retard, but at least you're kicking him while he's downs.

File: Gustavus_Adolphus_at_the_Battle_at_Breitenfeld.jpg (72KB, 381x481px) Image search: [Google]

72KB, 381x481px

>>28479083
And cavalry

>>28484296
Just imagine all 20 active B-2's flying in formation on a massive bombing run though

>>28484431
through Raqqa would be nice

>>28484438
We could even throw in the 63 B-1's we've got for that one

File: 1390062905654.jpg (348KB, 2048x1365px) Image search: [Google]

348KB, 2048x1365px

>>28484455
Ronald Reagan's war machine

File: 1920px-MiG-29_wreck[1].jpg (1MB, 1920x1305px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1920x1305px

>>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
I should add, that although I used the word "casualties", those numbers obviously don't include losses from malfunctions.

File: absolutely subversive.png (100KB, 250x250px) Image search: [Google]

100KB, 250x250px

>>28475405
>2016
>People still don't know about subversion.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5gnpCqsXE8g

>>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.

>>28484297
2 countries is not a victory

If the US didn't murder so many civilians, then the south vietnam wouldn't have been so weak at the end of a decade of war.

>>28484830
>unless you've gone full potato on something.
Yea like if you aren't a puppet government controlled by internationalist groups

>>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
If by, "important," you mean it's what differentiates contemporary warfare from anything else before it, then yes.

>>28483323
Yeah me too.

>>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.

>>28475482
>logistics
>intel
didn't have the balls to be infantry or the brains to be a pilot ehh. kek funny thing is both of those are covered by aerial response.

>>28485188
ATOs are slow as fuck, they have to be preplanned by days unless it's a broken arrow situation.

Not a problem...except the USAF's bureaucratic dominance creates absurd airspace deconfliction requirements for firing arty.

This raises arty response time from company commander and 5 minutes to O6 from a different branch and half an hour.

Looking at the ATOs from the Gulf War, we find that over 90% of the targets were within range of an ATACMS.

Artillery with integrated UAV spotting for interdiction is a very fast and powerful weapon orders of magnitude cheaper than fast movers.

The chief impediment to it is USAF budget-protection bureaucracy.

>>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.

>>28485027
>decade of war
Go back to school, junior. That area had been experiencing almost constant conflict since WWII. Read up on the French-Indochina war.

Secondly, you want to talk about civilian casualties, that's a two way street. There was no more brutal force on the ground to non-combatants than the NVA and Viet Cong.

>>28485240
>There's not enough mass.
hm?

>>28485240
>there's not enough mass

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?

>>28486216
>are you stupid

ATOs taking days.
Deconfliction taking hours.
Considering geographically dispersed fires sourcing bad.
Basic math for iron mountain buildups a fantasy.

At least Marine brainwash wears off over time. USAF brainwash seems only to get stronger.

>>28486280
What's funny is that the air force still loves warden's five rings of bullshit when GLCMS made pilots obsolete for it.

>>28486388
I forgot about cruise missiles.

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.

>>28486280
All valid complaints, but don't pretend the Army doesn't have its bullshit too. The bureaucracy on BOTH sides is ridiculous. When they come into conflict is when these things happen.

>>28481477
I don't think F-35s can occupy airfields.

>>28475405
>Inb4 six day war

>>28486144
It's a 500lb warhead
You buy artillery instead of spending trillions on air power, and you get far more bang for your buck

>>28484616
>From the last 30 years, the numbers are 0% and 100%

kek, fucking what?

17 January 1991
-USN F/A-18 shot down by Iraqi MiG-25

-MiG-29 scored a hit on an F-111 that managed to limp back to base
-MiG-29 scored a hit on both an F-111 and B-52G, damaging both.
(Both of which can be considered luck more than anything)

Arguably token, but not 0%.

>>28486388
Cost per missile would drop like a rock if you started buying hundreds of thousands of them
Or just developed a modern easily mass produced missile.

>>28475405
> inb4 Logistics

>>28486875
oops meant >>28486430

>>28486430
How exactly are you scouting these targets? confirming kills?

>>28486851
You're saying it like that's a lot.

>>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.

>>28475405


Chair Marshall pls go and stay go

>>28484427
>No separate standards
>Half the squadron is Infantry
>same vehicles, less personnel

Cavalry is literally only of value in Armored formations, where their purpose is to find mine fields before the more expensive tanks hit them.

File: low-oil.png (326KB, 1200x776px) Image search: [Google]

326KB, 1200x776px

>>28478123
>>28478640

Not to mention oil prices in the toilet for the foreseeable future and an economy heavily reliant on oil and gas exports

>>28486851
>Its a 500lb warhead

>You buy artillery instead of spending trillions on air power, and you get far more bang for your buck

>MGM-140 ATACMS - ~$2.3-1.5 Millon / each
>500lb HE

lolno

Could fly F-15Es covered in way more bang for way less buck that that, m8.

>>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

>>28487199
>comparing a general purpose dumb bomb to a million dollar precision munition.

I will admit that strapping a guidance package to the 500lb will still be cheaper than an ATACMS, but you also don't have to risk losing the $30million dollar airplane.

ATACMS might even fuck up and miss, and cost us $2.3mil a shot, but every time that F-15 takes off it runs the risk of crashing and taking $30mil with it; regardless of air supremacy.

>>28487350
The F-15 is incredibly unlikely to do so, and over sustained engagements and usage the cost efficiency pays out.

>>28487383
Not really
It'll always be cheaper to have rocket artillery than aviation for the similar quantity of boom.

>>28478132
>filename

>>28487608
That's a false equivalency, because aviation brings more boom and does it more accurately. And more likely to actually reach the target.

>>28487608
If quantity were the only factor involved, you might have a point.

>>28486952
>what was instant thunder

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.

>air power

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."

Douhet.

>“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."

Hap Arnold. QED.

>>28484153
Fixed wing here

>>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.

>>28488297
>obvs the answer is UAVs.

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.

>>28475405
Air power can't defeat sea power. Sea power can't defeat ground power. Ground power can't defeat air power. It's like rock paper sissors. Do you get it now??

>>28488592
Thats the stupidest shit I've ever heard.

>>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.

>>28488604
Until you think about it for 5 seconds.

>>28488650
The more you think about it the stupider it gets

Whats a carrier under that designation, especially considering naval aviation was basically the death of battleships

>>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.

Go fuck yourself.

>>28488677
> naval aviation was basically the death of battleships
>this meme again

>>28488752
>truth is a meme

>>28484482
fuck me B-1s are sexy

>>28475405
A Russian general and an American general are in Paris chatting about WW3. One turns to the other and says, so, who won the air war?

File: 1450395523717.jpg (84KB, 400x300px) Image search: [Google]

84KB, 400x300px

>>28481237
>MUH S-400

>implying force projection isn't the most important aspect of warfare.
>Deterring a war from happening is a war won in itself.

>>28475405
yeah thats why isis is allready defeated by aircraft

>>28475558
>You can have a shit army and no logistics but as long as people think you have the balls to actually use your nukes no one is messing with you.

ftfy

>>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).

>>28493386
russia much?

>>28478640
holy shit how uninformed could you be.
>>28481369
>The TER for the S400 (the truck with the tubes, not even the missiles themselves) costs $100 million itself. How is that cheaper?
BS.