Viability of Modern Warfighters

If you're talking about two equal foes, most of the time I imagine that the things you listed would be first focused on taking out eachother, before going after enemy infantry, because your infantry can deal with them, right? Second, footsoliders are a very versitile element, that are capable of knocking out a multitude of very dangerous enemy equipment with A. The appropriate gear, and B. a bit of planning and a dash of luck. And Third, probably the most important, is the fact a tank or jet cant clear a strategic zone/basement/bunker/building without leveling it, thus leaving the good ole' grunts to go get their hands dirty doing whatever is needed of them. Granted, I'm no expert, but thats just how I imagine it playing out.

>>32195246
The soldiers will be fine. They just need the protection of Zodd the Immortal

>>32195384
The problem i'm seeing is that one can't guarantee that the enemy rockets will focus 100% on one's own rockets.

Can I not assume that both forces are going to know where their enemies equipment is located?

Again I know essentially nothing about modern tactics.

>>32195394
We're going to assume Zodd isn't in the scenario or even an A-10 isn't going to help

File: 1394324398878564.jpg (17KB, 272x153px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 272x153px

>>32195394

Desert storm.

Armoured divisions did more in 100 hours than weeks of bombing, and against an army with almost no effective air defense in terrain with zero cover and concealment from the air.

Bombing has been overrated since the first time someone had the brilliant idea to drop a grenade or brick from a biplane.

>>32195922
You discount the effect that bombing had. The air campaign denied Iraq its ability to maneuver. This allowed the armored divisions to defeat the Iraqis in detail, one piece at a time, with the other Iraqi units unable to move to react to any move the Coalition made. Interdiction is extremely effective.

>>32196119
And you discount how perfect a situation it was for the air force. We are talking about a scenario of force parity. The 1991 campaign was what happens when a force has complete air supremacy.

File: return_to_no_mans_land.jpg (69KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

69KB, 640x480px

Let's not forget. Aircraft cannot hold a position. Vietnam showed us this- yeah we can go in, drop, patrol, walk about. Maybe get into some gigantic firefight. But at the end of the day when we pull out, the enemy still owns the land. Armor is there to take positions that have been weakened by air support. Infantry exists to hold them and to do delicate work inside buildings and also defense of the position from retaliation. And artillery is made to soften emplacements of enemy who have done the exact same thing on the other side. War has changed- and right now we're at the sort of stalemate in military technology that may just damn well lead to another WWI style conflict, where nobody can advance into the enemy missile or artillery range, where air battles rage constantly overhead to no end.

>>32196183
Force parity in the air doesn't exist for any fights longer than a week or two. But yes, it was as perfect a chance for air power to stretch its muscles as you could ask for. It doesn't mean that interdiction isn't extremely effective, nor does it wipe away the historical effectiveness of interdiction and the effects that having to work around it cause.

>>32196280
Air defense has likely reached a point similar to the balance of power with machineguns and massed rifles at the start of WW1. An air battle between technically and operationally competent nations would probably be irrelevant against the outrageous amount of layered air defenses that can be deployed.

Airpower could harass, but I don't think it will dominate the battlefield like it can when fighting 3rd world goat farmers.

>Air superiority removes the need for ground support
>all Tactical and strategic objectives involve paving a new parking lot with explosives

No

>>32196333
Disagree. Advanced air defenses do make things much more difficult but, like the last year of the war, even with existing planes you can smash through and exploit, if you make proper use of combined arms. If you look at the Cold War gone hot, it was expected to be a slaughter for literally every party involved. Air, land, and to a lesser extent sea. However, technology has advanced far. Standoff munitions and advanced SEAD equipment has done much to alleviate many of the factors that made it so likely a slaughter.

Advanced SAMs are countered by stealth aircraft. Given stealth negates most of the advantages of these SAMs, interdiction remains as useful as it used to be. No, it will not be as dominant as it was during Desert Storm, but it will continue to be a major factor, especially now that such advanced munitions as SDB-IIs exist.

File: F-117_down3.jpg (22KB, 321x366px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 321x366px

>>32196476
>Implying stealth aircraft are even relevant most of the time
GTFO, modern radar stealth can be overcome (in most cases) and is EXTREMELY expensive and hard to produce, meaning small amounts of the units already. We're talking about mass produced items, not spoops and wunderwaffe. The fucking Serbs managed it- a country with major AA resources, like SAM's and other weapons, would have an even easier time at them.
https://theaviationist.com/2014/03/27/vega-31-shot-down/
Triangulation through multiple modems of data, from comms to alternate radar wavelengths.

All this aside, I truly respect the Serbians for shooting down all the NATO aircraft during the Balkan wars, and their struggle for independence. Kosovo je Srbija.

>>32196552
The serbs managed it against a target they new exactly where and when it was going to be, in the single stealth aircraft whose stealth is MOST reliant on positioning and flightpath (as it turns out, if you're right underneath a flat object, you get fairly decent radar returns), launching missiles at 8 miles, while the bomb bay door was open. The confluence of events was extreme and unlikely. It should by no means be treated as the norm.

>GTFO, modern radar stealth can be overcome (in most cases) and is EXTREMELY expensive and hard to produce, meaning small amounts of the units already. We're talking about mass produced items, not spoops and wunderwaffe.
Radar stealth can always be overcome. That's a byproduct of physics. The only problem is the range at which it is overcome.

And there is a problem with your theory. It is predicated on stealth aircraft being expensive and with small unit counts. The F-35 blows this argument out of the water. Per unit cost is already BELOW a large number of conventional aircraft. The Koreans, for example, just signed an upgrade deal for their F-16s. If you do the math, it comes out to $89.5 million apiece. The F-35A, as of LRIP 9 is about $91.4 or .6 per plane, I can't remember the math correctly. The Gripen NG is of a similar cost. And guess what, they're making well over two thousand F-35s for the US alone. Yes, they are mass produceable. Stop living in the 90s.

>>32196604
As of yet, the development of the F-35 has been astronomical in cost. Almost 1.5 billion to research, test, and complete- with each unit costing 150 million. Finding the unit cost was done by an easy google search. And I daresay this is a gigantic price tag for an airplane.

>>32196684
>>32196684
>with each unit costing 150 million

100% false.

>>32196684
Development costs are high, yes. It's much more than just a stealth aircraft. Hell, stealth is its least costly or impressive thing about it.

I literally just told you what the current unit price was. $91 million as of LRIP 9. Full rate production is not for a couple more years.

>>32195246
Infantry are small targets and much harder to separate from civilians than tanks and IFVs. Infantry will probably ID a tank before it does them, and they'll call in CAS/drone strike/artillery support/friendly armor/etc. Or they'll pull a Javelin out of someone's ass and take care of the tank themselves.

Really, when you think about it, tanks are really big targets that put off a lot of heat and aren't all that maneuverable when your ROEs say you can't drive directly through houses that are in your way, and they're a big enough threat that basically everything on the battlefield has evolved ways to kill them.

>>32196684
>1.5 billion to research, test, and complete
Compare to 4.2 billion to build each of three Zumwalt destroyers, not counting 10 billion of R&D.

>>32195246
>Warfighter
hah

In a cold war gone hot scenario the average life expectancy of infantry was 3 minutes. Armor was 5 minutes.

Statistics aside, infantry has numbers, and do better in certain terrain. You can't make tanks as quickly as you can draft men.

>>32196684

OK, I'll take you up on that

https://lmgtfy.com/?q=full+rate+production+F-35A+unit+cost

>F-35A: $98M (low rate initial production without engine, full production in 2018 to be $85M)

>>32196745

The point is that a large armoured attack can threaten to outflank any serious fortifications, and overrun dispersed defensive positions. Yes, it will suffer losses, but so will any other way of attacking quickly.

Tanks & heavy IFVs are far more resistant to artillery than motorised infantry, Compared to the range of most ATGMs, artillery is the biggest threat.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CQpxNA-uku4

Video is an example of Russian rocket cluster artillery in action. As you can see, infantry and light vehicles in the open are going to have a bad day, whereas armour will more or less be able to drive through it. Remember, this is a single rocket artillery battery, in a real war there will be far far more.

>>32196684
/k/ loves their F-35, for good reason too >>32196778
That's really my point, infantry is going to get obliterated with current tactics and equipment, how does a nation stop that from happening?

>>32195246
Good luck killing dug in infantry.

Even nuclear weapons won't work.

>>32198300

How do you stop it? Well I would hope you interlace it with all your other assets to improve longevity and life of all things.

>>32196604
Radar was turned on for 17 seconds, with an altered wavelength. This is downright impressive that they detected it, and not a fluke at all.

>>32199842
They knew where it was before they even turned on the radar, because they knew where it was going to be, because flight paths hadn't been changed.