Jump to content

Air to air combat doctrine


Bacab

Recommended Posts

Hello,

 

After reading an interesting thread about how to defeat a F-15 with a Su-27, I was wondering if air forces not having fox-3 in their store have doctrine or methods to counter foes with this kind of missile.

 

I am interested in how air forces not as well equipped as the USAF or the Russian air forces could face those kind of opponents.

 

Please don't talk here about the sim, just about real stuff.

 

Thank you in advance for your answers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For airforces not equipped as well as top contenders against one equipped so, I'd say see results of various air combat cases over Eastern Europe or Middle East duing 90s and 2000s. There's just not much you can do.

 

Short answer : they couldn't face them :). Therefore, countries with less sophisticated airforces tend to instead rely on an elaborate / heavy integrated air defense network. However, those have also been overcome with means of EW aircraft, massive SEAD / DEAD strikes, stealth aircraft and massive naval bombardment using cruise missiles. Sure, air defence themselves had their moments, one example would be downing of F-117, or downing of some F-16s and Tornados over Iraq. However, in face of success of opposing airforce, these were phyrric victories at best.

 

IF you have a functioning early warning asset, then there might be some chance of inflicting some casualties with ambush type attacks with whatever fighters you have, and then run for your life, hoping for the best. But in face of massive air superiority, any EW asset are usually among the first to be destroyed by opposing force.

 

The most "succesful" resistance put up against an overwhelming air power may be the one during ODS by Iraq during early 90s, where they did get a few air kills, or forced abortion of a few missions. But we all know how much of an "success" that were and how it ended.

Wishlist: F-4E Block 53 +, MiG-27K, Su-17M3 or M4, AH-1F or W circa 80s or early 90s, J35 Draken, Kfir C7, Mirage III/V

DCS-Dismounts Script

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For airforces not equipped as well as top contenders against one equipped so, I'd say see results of various air combat cases over Eastern Europe or Middle East duing 90s and 2000s. There's just not much you can do.

 

Short answer : they couldn't face them :). Therefore, countries with less sophisticated airforces tend to instead rely on an elaborate / heavy integrated air defense network. However, those have also been overcome with means of EW aircraft, massive SEAD / DEAD strikes, stealth aircraft and massive naval bombardment using cruise missiles. Sure, air defence themselves had their moments, one example would be downing of F-117, or downing of some F-16s and Tornados over Iraq. However, in face of success of opposing airforce, these were phyrric victories at best.

 

IF you have a functioning early warning asset, then there might be some chance of inflicting some casualties with ambush type attacks with whatever fighters you have, and then run for your life, hoping for the best. But in face of massive air superiority, any EW asset are usually among the first to be destroyed by opposing force.

 

The most "succesful" resistance put up against an overwhelming air power may be the one during ODS by Iraq during early 90s, where they did get a few air kills, or forced abortion of a few missions. But we all know how much of an "success" that were and how it ended.

Thank you for your answer.

I'm not sure if those conflicts are relevant. True they were under equipped but they were also lacking training, proper cohesion and good commander.

 

I had in mind an other question than the one you answered: to what point training, preparation and doctrine can compensate for a technological weakness, and in this case the lack of medium range fire and forget missile.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, while Iraqi commanders may have not been the sharpes, being just out of an almost decade long war, their pilots could be said to be quite battle hardened. At least a few of the MiG-25 pilots did "decently" during the conflict. And Iraqi MiG-29s were, by then, among latest air combatants.

 

My point was, even if you are trained well, and have a sensible, perhaps even clever command, when your communication / intelligence / early warning networks are jammed / destroyed, what cohesion you had will be gone. And then, with a both numerically and technologically superiour foe is patrolling the skies, you won't know where the enemy is, but they will as soon as you takeoff from the runway. That is a losing scenario even if you'd have some not too obsolete aircraft available.

 

So I believe it also anwser the latter question, if a force cannot defend their Command & Control & Intelligence and Air Defense networks from being bombed to stoneage, training, preparation etc may only delay the inevitable for a short while, may be not even that. After that, each and any take-off is like a suicide mission. In all those wars, forces opposing the NATO actually had at least decent fighters, but they just couldn't get them in the air after the first few days of war, because when they did, it meant running through a minefield, blindfolded.

 

Now, if we are not talking about scenarios like USA or Russia or China vs a smaller and less equipped country, but instead we are talking about two similarly equipped countries but one having technologically somewhat better airforce, than I'm sure other party would train doctrines specifically tailored for the situation, but this didn't sound like the original question of this thread, so apologies if I misunderstood that :).

Wishlist: F-4E Block 53 +, MiG-27K, Su-17M3 or M4, AH-1F or W circa 80s or early 90s, J35 Draken, Kfir C7, Mirage III/V

DCS-Dismounts Script

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you for your answer.

I'm not sure if those conflicts are relevant. True they were under equipped but they were also lacking training, proper cohesion and good commander.

 

I had in mind an other question than the one you answered: to what point training, preparation and doctrine can compensate for a technological weakness, and in this case the lack of medium range fire and forget missile.

 

That's exactly the mistaken belief people keep pushing. They say the Iraqis were useless pilots, but they weren't. Many of them of them were experienced combat pilots with kills under their belt, even aces. And don't forget Iran had F-14s and AIM-54s during that war. The R-40 on the MiG-25s was arguably the longest range AAM of ODS too, since Phoenix wasn't used because of RoE. The Dogfights series also details the Iraqi pilots as employing sophisticated techniques in air combat.

 

Iraq also had the 4th most powerful military in the world at the time, behind only the US, Russia and China. They even had more troops than the coalition but they were just outclassed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's exactly the mistaken belief people keep pushing. They say the Iraqis were useless pilots, but they weren't. Many of them of them were experienced combat pilots with kills under their belt, even aces. And don't forget Iran had F-14s and AIM-54s during that war. The R-40 on the MiG-25s was arguably the longest range AAM of ODS too, since Phoenix wasn't used because of RoE. The Dogfights series also details the Iraqi pilots as employing sophisticated techniques in air combat.

 

Iraq also had the 4th most powerful military in the world at the time, behind only the US, Russia and China. They even had more troops than the coalition but they were just outclassed.

I didn't say anything against Iraqi pilots. I just mentioned the fact that in most operations of the 90's the opposition was near zero when it comes to the air part. Calm down :-)

 

If I correctly understood your scenario you assume since the beginning that all critical assets were destroyed. Let's go back in time a bit. Before all strikes had been done. Is it possible for a small airforce to defend it's airspace for some time. Let's say the USA attack Switzerland because something. They must have a plan to protect themselves for some time, otherwise it wouldn't even be necessary to have an air force.


Edited by Bacab
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Any strategy that revolves around defeating ARH wielding opponent without having your own ARH most often relies on gaining some other form of advantage, be it intelligence, better SA, numerical advantage, and the list goes on. If a given airforce doesn't have ARH capability then it's also quite possible that they are lacking sufficient EW equipment (radars, jammers, datalinks, etc that are up to date) merely due to a probable financial issue. In this sort of situation where the opponent has a high level of technical superiority in every aspect - ARHs, AESA, modern ECM, latest generation of network warfare tools, not to mention AWACS support - it's extremely difficult to put up a decent fight.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I didn't say anything against Iraqi pilots. I just mentioned the fact that in most operations of the 90's the opposition was near zero when it comes to the air part. Calm down :-)

 

If I correctly understood your scenario you assume since the beginning that all critical assets were destroyed. Let's go back in time a bit. Before all strikes had been done. Is it possible for a small airforce to defend it's airspace for some time. Let's say the USA attack Switzerland because something. They must have a plan to protect themselves for some time, otherwise it wouldn't even be necessary to have an air force.

That's simply a ridiculous scenario. The US are about as likely to attack themselves as Switzerland.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Any strategy that revolves around defeating ARH wielding opponent without having your own ARH most often relies on gaining some other form of advantage' date=' be it intelligence, better SA, numerical advantage, and the list goes on. .....[/quote']

 

 

instead of going nose-to-nose with the US/coalition in the air, the iraqis went another direction, ie.. scud missiles

i7-4790K | Asus Sabertooth Z97 MkI | 16Gb DDR3 | EVGA GTX 980 | TM Warthog | MFG Crosswind | Panasonic TC-58AX800U

 

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

instead of going nose-to-nose with the US/coalition in the air, the iraqis went another direction, ie.. scud missiles

 

Yeah but this thread was about A2A doctrine, not other means of idiotic destruction. In my opinion it's just unrealistic to except a side that lacks technology to successfully fight another that has massive technological superiority. Whatever airforce in the world you are at the moment, given sufficient financial support I bet you would be able to buy ARH capability. ARH capability has been a key requirement for a fighter for more than a decade now, so if you don't have this then you don't have much else either, unless the military is being constructed by a group of incompetent morons. Following all that the lack of sufficient finances would result in a low amount of flight hours per pilot, worse training quality, and other things that are crucial to the pilot's ability to perform.

 

I'd say a decade or two ago it would have been a chance to fight the uphill battle, and it indeed has been fought a few times. But by now the EW department advanced so much that most of the tactics used before would simply not work anymore. Specifically looking at ambushing people from terrain cover/low flying/baiting and some more of this stuff. With today's level of electronics I assume that they'll have a very high level of coverage of the airspace and if something appears out of nowhere they'll know about it well in time.

 

On top of all that even if you had ARH and modern sensors you would still run into the problem of what are the differences between your equipment and the the opponents', to further determine tactics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah but this thread was about A2A doctrine, not other means of idiotic destruction. In my opinion it's just unrealistic to except a side that lacks technology to successfully fight another that has massive technological superiority. Whatever airforce in the world you are at the moment, given sufficient financial support I bet you would be able to buy ARH capability. ARH capability has been a key requirement for a fighter for more than a decade now, so if you don't have this then you don't have much else either, unless the military is being constructed by a group of incompetent morons. Following all that the lack of sufficient finances would result in a low amount of flight hours per pilot, worse training quality, and other things that are crucial to the pilot's ability to perform.

 

I'd say a decade or two ago it would have been a chance to fight the uphill battle, and it indeed has been fought a few times. But by now the EW department advanced so much that most of the tactics used before would simply not work anymore. Specifically looking at ambushing people from terrain cover/low flying/baiting and some more of this stuff. With today's level of electronics I assume that they'll have a very high level of coverage of the airspace and if something appears out of nowhere they'll know about it well in time.

 

On top of all that even if you had ARH and modern sensors you would still run into the problem of what are the differences between your equipment and the the opponents', to further determine tactics.

I thought they may have been a doctrine similar, in use, to guerilla warfare but applicable to air domination.

 

@Emu: that's the point of this scenario. Being quite absurd it prevents people from rushing into each other by national pride and different historical point of view.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guerilla warfare and aerial warfare are more or less incompatible, in former, low tech belligerent can have the stealthiness by it's side, by the virtue of being small, knowing the territory, blending in with population etc. In latter, stealthiness will be with high tech belligerent, and with current level of EW, like mentioned by Blaze above, low tech belligerent's every move will be known to their enemy. It has been so even in early 90s operations by NATO AWACS coverage, and EW has come a long way since then. I believe the closest analogy in air combat to guerilla warfare would be ambush attacks, sticking to deck and mountains, hoping not to be detected, and popping up, firing missiles and running away where the enemy is. Like said in above posts, it would require low tech party to be able to hide their moves and intentions, while knowing whereabouts of their intented target. Not a likely scenario, not anymore at least.

 

In case of hypotethical USA vs Switzerland, I don't want to step on any toes, but, even if we consider USA not using any stealth assets for some reason, I'd still put my money on them overwhelming air defense network relatively quick. In such scenarios, delaying the inevitable for some time wouldn't matter much even if achieved.

 

Still, this doesn't have much, if at all to do with whether there is a point in having an airforce or not. Point of having an airforce is not that so you can hope standing against top powers in the world. If you say "meh, Russia can owerwhelm my airpower pretty quick anyway, so why bother with one", then who will stop your neighbors with any sort of airforce from bullying you for example :) ? That said, since the fall of Soviet Union and end of Cold War, many realtively small and/or not-so-rich countries did infact sold off their air force, or reduced it to symbolic levels. This include both eastern and western countries. If you are so low on resources and have a land mass so small that you only have a few airbases that can be put out of commission quickly, or alternatively all your neigbors have militaries that are vastly superiour and there is not hope to build one that is similar, then the benefit of operating an airforce may indeed start to diminish.

Wishlist: F-4E Block 53 +, MiG-27K, Su-17M3 or M4, AH-1F or W circa 80s or early 90s, J35 Draken, Kfir C7, Mirage III/V

DCS-Dismounts Script

Link to comment
Share on other sites

today especially in air warfare its all about hi-tech.. meaning lots of resources,financial and otherwise needed to maintain any level of ability to resist modern enemy air force.. ARH is just ARH far from game winner.. does the enemy have numerical advantage ? how about financial resource..can they fight war longer then you? do they have more cruise missiles then you have SAM missiles to shoot them down. can you develop those SAM missiles to replenish stock plus defend the factory that builds them?.. if no to all those answers then training your pilots to win enemy with arh while they don't have arh means nothing EVEN if you succeed and have 60:40 kill ratio in air.. you loose the war..

 

whole idea of bleeding the enemy and this means they will stop attacking you even if enemy keeps pushing sooner or later you will break is over.. this idea is over because to be effective you need another superpower that back you basically.. lets take Switzerland for example.. lets say somehow they are capable of downing US planes in advantegous ratio of 70:30 %.. awesome.. now what? will US back down? why? because they got disgraced? nope, US would just pile the pressure, and add more, and more.. and soon Swiss would run out of bullets to fire .. war of attrition.. actually hurting the enemy that is more powerful than you is ALWAYS a bad idea..because his pride is hurt,now he really NEEDS to kill you to make sure everybody watching sees what happens when somebody rebels against you..or you loose "prestige, aka respect as mobsters call it"..

 

in small countries war lets say, Slovakia vs. Czech.. one side with ARH one with SARH.. yeah.. you could have tactics to prevent absolute superiority of enemy ARH.. but only if you are the defending side.. and have more or less effective SAM systems.. why not..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Iraq also had the 4th most powerful military in the world at the time, behind only the US, Russia and China. They even had more troops than the coalition but they were just outclassed.

 

Only by numbers. I'd call countries stuffed with outdated Soviet/Western stuff hardly powerful against modern militaries.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

it is a problem.. since you don't have the 1.5 but 1)) numbers win.. but even iraq 1991 war was heavily against iraq not just technological but numerical.. US coalition outnumbered the iraqis in warplanes department, helicopter, awacs, intel, etc.. it was not even a contest..

 

and after a gruelling 10 yrs war with Iran , iraq was shadow of what it could be..

 

what can i say, US played it superbly by supporting iraq into waging war against iran, thus weakening iraq and iran, and then hammering iraq afterwards.. now that is strategy.. tactics have little meaning when you loose strategically..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

it is a problem.. since you don't have the 1.5 but 1)) numbers win.. but even iraq 1991 war was heavily against iraq not just technological but numerical.. US coalition outnumbered the iraqis in warplanes department, helicopter, awacs, intel, etc.. it was not even a contest..

 

and after a gruelling 10 yrs war with Iran , iraq was shadow of what it could be..

 

what can i say, US played it superbly by supporting iraq into waging war against iran, thus weakening iraq and iran, and then hammering iraq afterwards.. now that is strategy.. tactics have little meaning when you loose strategically..

It was the 4th largest military in the world at the time.

 

I don't think the US deliberately played it out like that. Iraq did invade Kuwait if you remember but we're straying into politics here, so I'll stop there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In my humble opinion it's not the ARH missile but the AWACS and the other sensors that monitor the battles pace. An opposing force would need to blind the sensors so it is left to the individual fighter elements to hunt and acquire the air threats

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

LUCKY:pilotfly::joystick:

Computer Specs

CPU: AMD Ryzen 5 2600 6-Core 3.4 GHz| GPU: Nvidia GeForce GTX 1660 6Gb | RAM: 32 GB DDR4 @ 3000 MHz | OS: Win 10 64 bit | HD: 500 Gb SSD

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tactics for this exist. Doctrine also, but that blends in SOJs and other 'fun things', since denying the shot to begin with is allows you to close in and solve some problems.

 

Generally speaking though, when facing an ARH armed opponent, these tactics don't work as well as they might have worked just against something with a superior radar.

 

What this boils down to is that you're not likely to actually gain air superiority or even air parity - this is where the notion of the exchange ratio comes in. Yes, the SARH guys WILL shoot down some of the ARH guys, but it'll be something like 1:4-1:6.

 

And the more of your guys you lose, the worse this ratio gets down the road as an overall average.

 

Your only hope is to out-sortie the other guy, and deplete all their missiles, then destroy their HVAAs at great cost, but still a useful victory. That point was made by RAND's east Asia study and it had ARH and modern technology on both sides.

 

After reading an interesting thread about how to defeat a F-15 with a Su-27, I was wondering if air forces not having fox-3 in their store have doctrine or methods to counter foes with this kind of missile.

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D

I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...