the air superiority VS. overall superiority ..

[Sanakius]

We all know how air superiority is important, but just how important is it in the face of advanced SAM's and techiques of emploment on the field together with Air force in order to defend against such Air Force as the US?

 

SAMs coupled with AWACS and Sukhoi fighters could easily locate F-22 regardelss of the so called stealth-that is the reason why US air force always goes after radar warning systems and SAMs in the first phase of the war-usally with Tomahawk missiles and other cruise weponry of their choice-- and here is the most important question.. if the "host" turns off his systems or employs them periodicly and yet integratedly it can make a LPI of some sort, .. it would be impossible to locate SAMs and target them as they would always be on the move or to put it differently, ..one of the SAMs would move while other provide cover and vice versa and to couple that with AF it makes it very hard do achieve that goal of that very important "FIRST PHASE" in order to progress and afterwards send more aircrafts in to provide CAS, CAP, strike missions etc..

 

 

What do you think?

 

Plus i have an idea that has to be wrong or else someone would have already done it.. but i wil tell it to you so you can rebuff it in a logical point of view so to see what i have missed.? ..okei?

 

here it goes; if AWACS is a much bigger and stronger radar that can pick the smallest of the crap flying in the air, why don' make even a bigger stronger radars on such DC like passanger planes coupled with bombers that would carry an array of AA missiless like the one in the S-400 containers, .. not to mention that the range would be improved tremendously since the energy needed to get off the ground would be preserved for extending the range of the missile, the missiles would be guided by the "awacs" system so, .. theoreticaly you can kill an invading AF with 2-5 such radar dishes flying behined the screen of bombers with missiles that would offer an ability to destroy targets away as much as 200 miles, .. in between the "awacs" and "bombers" would be fighters to provide protection just in case of some emergencies that could occur..

 

So, ..lets start the "rebuffall" .. :)

Edited August 21, 2008 by Sanakius

[Pilotasso]

SAMs coupled with AWACS and Sukhoi fighters could easily locate F-22 regardelss of the so called stealth-that is the reason why US air force always goeas after radar warning systems and SAMs in the first phase of the war-ussaly with Tomahawk missiles and other cruise weponry of their choice

 

None of the sort. just because Stealth works its not fool proof, why take chances it if you can minimize risks by building a safety margim bigger than that provided by stealth alone? Besides not all aircraft are stealth, usualy other planes are used for other tasks that will need those SAM's removed.

 

The same way that most fighters are destroyed on ground even though the plane thay may encounter are potentialy much better.

 

 

As for integrated defense, SAm's are only one pilar of the whole. it would be a mistake to rely on one pilar in detriment of the other. All major conflicts in the midle east shows this. SAM's were a priveleged defense system, when it was discovered migs couldnt match both the american made planes and US/iraeli pilots.

 

Formidable SAM fortesses have yet to resist a smart attack from the sky.

 

SAMs coupled with AWACS and Sukhoi fighters could easily locate F-22 regardelss of the so called stealth-that is the reason why US air force always goeas after radar warning systems and

 

Any nation that has F-22's will probabaly outmatch the awacs and suckois with his own AWACS and JSTARS in the area of electronic situational awareness as well. I am not aware that the network of SAM's, AWACS and suckois could take out an F-22 without this one having made something very wrong, like shutting off all datalink and fly blind into the battlefield. The F-22 will not be alone in any way, its very likely that its opposition will be in worse prospectives to survive instead.

Edited August 21, 2008 by Pilotasso

[Sanakius]

"Formidable SAM fortesses have yet to resist a smart attack from the sky."

 

so far there hasn't been a formidable SAM system in wars and if it was it was not integrated on a level that it could be, .. 1973 is far from integrated SAM system and when there is no AWACS capability it makes almost no sense..

 

So, please tell me why this wouldn't work, .. what i have written, so far..? An AF can't waste time to locat SAM and at the same time fight the enemy AF or it can try but lose a lot of its own aircraft in the process.. There is a reason why Israel and US are trying so haaaard to prevent the shipment of medium to long range SAM system to Iran and Sryia, ..not to mention about hysteria about AWACS systems..

 

i am just saying, if all of it connected together, i believe it is very hard for anything to survive in the air, no matter the stealth or power or what have you..

 

But of course you can always go and destroy the SAMs by groung forces, it takes time but it can be done, .. the problem is US ground forces would never dare to go into a war that would mean they coudn't employ their umbrella-US AF...

[tflash]

Read this: http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_channel.jsp?channel=defense&id=news/GEORGIA081308.xml

 

You'll find other similar articles on Aviation Week.

[Sanakius]

this aviation week online magazine seems not to good if you ask me, .. i mean, just read a couple of their "stories", ..it amazes me that such analyitical minds can't undestand why Russia hasn't been able to see the imminent danger of the georgian attack when it vwas obvious that an attack was coming.. as to describe the Russian armed forces as uncapable of functioning properly..

 

The Russian forces knew of the crazy plans this crazy leader had-Saakashvili, but coudn't have done anything as the moment any reiforcments would come in to Ossetia it would hit the western media as look, ..Russia is occupying Ossetia etc.. Russians actually had to wait to get wiped off in the capital only then do Russians have the moral right to defend themself and even THEN they are the agressors..

 

If it would have been in US Mexico border, .. if a leader of Mexico would say that he would send tanks near the border in the same minute he would be speaking bombs would start flying on Mexico, .. talk about unproportional attack..

 

This media analyzis make me laugh, .. but seriously, ..what about the AWACS killer system..? what do you think?

[GGTharos]

I believe you missed the point. Russia's awesome SAM defenses didn't work as well as hoped.

[Sanakius]

they didn't work? .. i don't understand what you mean by that?

 

The SAMS didn't work, or there was no integrated network, or people just didn't no how to use them-tactical knowledge- something the Yugoslav forces knew more than well, but had a little bit of problem-their SAM systems were old, like really old-from the 60' old.. and still managed to shoot the infamous F-117 and F-16 , .. while at the same time not loosing their SAM systems .. that is what i mean when i say tactical knowledge coupled with AF and LPI kind of a behaviour..

 

Now Serbia is a bad example for the obvious reasons, so i am talking about a country that is not pre-prepared for slaughter like sanction hit Iraq or lacking of everything Afghanistan, .. in normal situations with integrated defenses how much do you really believe an AF can destroy the enemy and dominate the skies without considerable losess..??

[GGTharos]

You mean they managed to shoot down two planes out of how many sorties? And completely failed to protect their infrastructure. Yes, good on the them for keeping their SAMs intact and shooting down an F-16 and F-117. They accomplished nothing useful in the end.

 

And yes, I believe a well organized AF can dominate the sky in the face of integrated defenses.

 

See my sig for more guidance ;)

[AlphaOneSix]

in normal situations with integrated defenses how much do you really believe an AF can destroy the enemy and dominate the skies without considerable losess..??

 

Simple.

 

Intelligence.

 

What kind of retarded military says to itself "Hey, the enemy has an amazing integrated air defense network. Let's throw planes at it until we destroy it all."

 

That just wouldn't happen. If faced with an apparently insurmountable obstacle, just approach it from a different direction. Even an integrated air defense network can be taken apart piece by piece with relatively little loss, if the right tactics and equipment are available and used.

 

GG is absolutely right, SAMs are just speed bumps. Real air defense comes in the form of fighters in the air, not missiles on the ground.

[Sanakius]

you keep me amazed under such clarification i have put still there is insistance that such countries that are pre-prepared for slaughter do not count.. Yugoslavia was hit with sanctions, wars and overwhelming force, their AF had missing parts, inoperable radars, no RWR etc.. and very low number of fighters, .. under such circumstances i must say YES it is a success to destroy 2 fighters and keep your military intact.. and the Yugoslav military was intact at least from the military point of view.

 

Their ability to perform on the battlefield was untouched since the NATO aircraft only dared to fly at 20 000 feet it is not surprising that is the case.

 

Now, to leave this poor country alone-since you cannot i hope you will now- and to try and understand how SAM systems really work and how an integrated defense might be destroyed by some reason, analytical thinking and suggestions would be more apreciated in this discussion than the ussual "i know better" dialoge that i cannot see to comprehand as to how it does it "job" ..

 

thank you..

[Sanakius]

i know that inteligence is important, ..that is the point of the integrated defence, to keep that inteligence secret..

 

As you know or may not know, .. US AF managed to provoke the iraqies in the early stages of the preparation of Desert Storm Iraqi SAM responses, ..those idiots kept their radar on, .. their C&C sites turned on, ..there was no such thing as radio silence, .. in those weeks, months US had gathered the neccessary inteligence needed for an Air operation of such scale as it deed.

 

But when i say integrated defence i mean smart defence, ..not someone who have their radar turned on and screaming on the top of their lungs here i am, i am invincible..

 

You can incorporate stealth just as easily on the ground as you do in the air.. in fact it is even easier..

 

And about infrastructure, ..don't worry, millitary can do without infrastructure, .. but to lose 100 attack aircraft while trying to bomb some civilians and destroy a couple of bridges that have no strategic capabilty apart from scaring the hell out of civilians in the "shock and awe" illusions, .. i can't see the profit coming from that..

[GGTharos]

.. under such circumstances i must say YES it is a success to destroy 2 fighters and keep your military intact.. and the Yugoslav military was intact at least from the military point of view.

 

Actually it was an abject failure. It is PRECICELY because the military stayed hidden that NATO attacked infrastructure instead. Your definition of success is very skewed. They preserved their military. Great. They lost a country.

 

Their ability to perform on the battlefield was untouched since the NATO aircraft only dared to fly at 20 000 feet it is not surprising that is the case.

This is not the case. It doesn't matter how low they'd fly; fighters have a hard time seeing enemies hiding in foliage. You have to take ground with ground forces, and NATO wasn't up to that. They preferred to bomb infrastructure and not lose fighters instead. That you don't understand what bombing infrastructure does seems to indicate that you don't understand how war works.

 

If you think a military can go on without infrastructure you are mistaken. An Army needs supplies. A LOT of supplies. Storage, production, transport of such supplies requires infrastructure.

It's more likely that the civillians will cry uncle way before the military does, though ...

 

Now, to leave this poor country alone-since you cannot i hope you will now- and to try and understand how SAM systems really work and how an integrated defense might be destroyed by some reason, analytical thinking and suggestions would be more apreciated in this discussion than the ussual "i know better" dialoge that i cannot see to comprehand as to how it does it "job" ..

 

thank you..

You're not thinking analytically, you're just blindly believing that an IADS with just SAMs is the end-all-be-all of air defense. It never was, and never will be. Even S400/PAtriot range against tactical fighters is some 30-40km in reality, not the 75-90-150km that some like to claim. This leaves holes in defense, and those holes only get BIGGER when you fly a stealth aircraft through them.

 

If you want to understand why even a tightly integrated SAM system alone can't cut the mustard against a well organize, high-tech expeditionary air force, start running some experiments of your own. Then you'll see.

Edited August 21, 2008 by GGTharos

[Sanakius]

Actually it was an abject failure. It is PRECICELY because the military stayed hidden that NATO attacked infrastructure instead. Your definition of success is very skewed. They preserved their military. Great. They lost a country.

well, trying to save the civilians isn't really a failure on their part, and NATO's behaviour is in fact a war crime so i don't see how that is explained but lets go along with this logic, .. infrastructure is more important to civilians that it is to the Army, army can take much togher situation, and if civilians suffer there is a bigger chance that the resistance they will put on the ground just even stronger..

 

Vietnam had extreme losses in the war, especially civilians because of such "tactics" that US employed, but still won, ..i am talking about winning a war and preventing the supremacy of the invading AF.. i have never said SAMs alone are enough, if you would care to read again the first article of this thread you will see i am talking about SAM and AF working together, which means knowing your are of responsibility with SAM and SAM with AF and dragging unfortunate souls into the zones of fire..

 

and such zones can be changed very easily to cover a different part of the country etc..

 

I am saying that by preparation and knowledge and training you can disable anykind of advantage the invading AF has..

 

to take Iran case is very good, US has been there for quite a while, probing the AD trying to "see" and "feel" where AD is,.. but if Iranians are smart they will have all of their equipment shut down, .. but you will say what is bombs start falling? .. that is something that not to smart to think about, cruise missiles cannot be stopped by Iranian AF or AD at the moment, but the soon as they hear invading AF flying over their heads that is the time you turn the heat and planes-stealth or no stealth start droping like eggs in the basket..

 

The reason US AF is always probing is very simple .. INTELIGENCE.. you take that away and they are as blind as you say the Sucksois are against raptors..

 

to try to employ double standars in this very logical debate doesn't seem to have any either sense or point ..

[GGTharos]

You're going into a whole bunch of what-ifs instead of historically proven fact. ;)

 

Sure, yes, a well organized, organic IADS will do wonders for your defense, at least until you can get on the offensive. If you can't get on the offensive, you're not going to win. You might not lose either, but you definitely won't win.

[nscode]

This is not the case. It doesn't matter how low they'd fly; fighters have a hard time seeing enemies hiding in foliage. You have to take ground with ground forces, and NATO wasn't up to that. They preferred to bomb infrastructure and not lose fighters instead. That you don't understand what bombing infrastructure does seems to indicate that you don't understand how war works.

 

If you think a military can go on without infrastructure you are mistaken. An Army needs supplies. A LOT of supplies. Storage, production, transport of such supplies requires infrastructure.

It's more likely that the civillians will cry uncle way before the military does, though ...

 

How long do you think it would take NATO to win the ground war? Let's stretch it to two weeks. What storage and production do you need for two weeks of dancing with the devil? What you've got in your pocket is all storage you are going to get. But NATO knew that the price of those two weeks would be all to high, and wisely chosen not to begin the ground war. What remained was a war of endurance. Don't ever think that what you've seen from ground defenses was all they could give. As much as everything else, they were being preserved for the chance NATO decided they DID want a ground war. This was clear the day the units got the news that everything was over, and decided to celebrate by turning night into day.

 

So, what was the purpose of air defenses in Serbia? To shoot down aircraft? That's a nice bonus if you can get it. But if you give all you have and shoot down 20 NATO aircraft what have you done? You've lost everything, and they've lost 1%. Rather than that, the purpose of air defenses was to indicate that there still IS an army down there that will take you on if you choose to do ground, and that you should not do it. Also they did not allow aircraft to do anything they want. Sure, you can't eliminate everything even when you go low, but you can sure eliminate more than keeping high.

 

So what have they achieved?

 

• the first to shoot down a stealth plane, nice one for the books, and greatly influenced the political power of stealth, great for the morale (remember.. e n d u r a n c e)
  
• kept things high (above 3m AGL)
  
• in the end only Kosovo was occupied and not the entire country, as west had hoped for
  

Was it all worth it? Do not ask.

Edited August 21, 2008 by nscode

[tflash]

Well, let's not go into the politics, I must say I find sympathy for both views anyway.

I guess for an integrated air defense newtork to really work, you need more space than Serbia had. Take Belgium: what would be an integrated air defense for Belgium? When you detect an incoming aircraft coming from Germany, chances are it is already in France before you can even think about doing something. Really integrated defenses use that main advantage: space. CONUS has space, Russia has space. All the others? Well, they'ld better get their fighters airborne. Fast.

[Sanakius]

i agree, you need space, lots of space to do implement integrated defence network, ..

 

Belgium, Slovenia, Slovakia etc. with their small size cannot really afford lots of systems to begin with, and those that would be there coudn't "escape" in that small space, ..

 

But Iraq, Iran, Syria, especially Russia i must say have that component, .. i have read a lot about SAMs and i must say i am very dissapointed at their poor perfomance in virtual simulation games especially from lacking "inteligence", .. and not to mention the lack of optical targeting which would disable any warning system when fired upon in that mode..

 

anyway as i have said, there is a lot of things happening in the SAM world that we plane freaks cannot see and seem not to care since we are so in love with aircrafts..

 

For instance there is a plan to create some sort of a "clone attack", . .. cheap versions of tracking radar -the one's that make a lot of "noise"- and place them around SAMs in close proximity and very far away, .. the point of this idea is to "engage" an enemy aircraft at the same time as the launching of the AD missile at him.. That would create many false readings in the RWR and one real one that cannot be seen or distinguished from the fake, .. apart from this advantage it also disturbs the Wild weasels en route in their effort to target the "right" SAM system..

 

Such "cheap" moveable systems would turn themself on and off only to be moved and do this again in a rapid fashion would create a blinding picture of not jamming but of thousands and thousands of SAM that if you are crazy enough would try to destroy with missiles and bombs and at the same time risk being blown in the process for staying in the HOT zone for too long..

 

i cannot tell you exactly where i read this, cannot remember but it was some reaserch project in Russia that involved the forementioned "integrated defence system" ..

 

i just wanted to bring some awarness of how SAM systems are not being simulated to the levels they should be in order to get that feeling of what this systems really meanin a real war instead of such statments such as : SAMs = Speed bumps, .. i agree, but only if you play a video game that is..

[jpm1]

SAMS and planes have the same goal protect against planes but maintaining a Kub or a Hawk group is cheaper than the maintenance of a 5 F-15 squadron . Historically Russia has a less "agressive" agressive being here non-pejorative behaviour than the US this maybe explaining that but if you want a superiority army it should be able to be offensive who says offensive says air superiority who says air superiority says high end air to air systems

[GGTharos]

Reality disagrees with you.

SAMs always have been and always will be speed bumps.

 

Why? Because no matter how 'mobile' they are, compared to an Aircraft they are a stationary target.

 

Compared to a stealth aircraft they are a stationary target waiting to be blown up.

 

Oh but hey, it's not like there's a stealth aircraft out there with a scary ESM suite, the ability to do some of the most accurate ground-mapping, selecting of targets and assigning multiple JDAM targets to deal with the problem. It's not called an F-22 or anything. ;)

 

SAMs = Speed bumps, .. i agree, but only if you play a video game that is..

[4c Hajduk Veljko]

Actually it was an abject failure. It is PRECICELY because the military stayed hidden that NATO attacked infrastructure instead. Your definition of success is very skewed. They preserved their military. Great. They lost a country.

Country was not lost, see United Nations resolution 1244 and Kumanovo agreement. And SAM’s did the job! Military AND the country was preserved. NATO’s decision to bomb “infrastructure” is just another proof that SAM’s worked.

 

It's more likely that the civillians will cry uncle way before the military does, though ...

Why would civilians “cry uncle” if military infrastructure is bombed? Please be more specific. Edited August 21, 2008 by =4c= Hajduk Veljko

[GGTharos]

I thought I was on ignore. I didn't mind it being that way.

[RedTiger]

Sanakius, it sounds like your not thinking the whole notion of "air superiority" through all the way to the reasons why you want that superiority.

 

Lets say a country has such a SAM and radar system integrated like you're talking about. I'm just keeping this to really simple terms.

 

Ok, so they're doing their "SAM dance" moving SAMs around while using other SAMs and defenses as cover, all in an effor to keep the attacker guessing. First of all...can't the attacker just hit the SAMs and/or planes that are providing the cover? Also, I'm not sure what ratio your thinking of, but by moving your defenses, you're also opening holes in your defense. Those SAMs on the move are effectively out of action and are making it that much easier to find a small hole in the umbrella and tear it open wider.

 

Ok, nevermind that, lets say the attacker just says "oh well...we've been duped" and doesn't go for your defenses. They decide instead to attack on the ground. Now comes the "air superiority" part. Why do you want superiority anyway? So you can bomb the crap out of the attacker unopposed. Wouldn't you have to turn on some radar and SAMs, launch some fighters, etc. to maintain that superiority while you bombers proceed to attack the ground forces?

 

Can I attack your defenses now?

 

Your idea sounds like your trying to preserve your air defenses rather than employing them for superiority. Instead of having them up and running, DEFENDING, you're moving them around trying to preserve them all for naught because you'll eventually have to "come out and play" at some point or risk losing AND making everything you've done up to this point...pointless.

 

Really simple ideas here, I know...but I'm not getting how what your saying will work. Maybe I'm misunderstanding.

Edited August 22, 2008 by RedTiger

[4c Hajduk Veljko]

I thought I was on ignore. I didn't mind it being that way.

Somebody needs to check on you every now and then. BTW, what about the post #20?

[GGTharos]

I think nscode has said everything that needs to be said; that people are reading things into it that he did NOT say is a different matter all together.

 

I tend to learn a lot from him when he likes to throw his opinion in. ;)

[hitman]

Country was not lost, see United Nations resolution 1244 and Kumanovo agreement. And SAM’s did the job! Military AND the country was preserved. NATO’s decision to bomb “infrastructure” is just another proof that SAM’s worked.

 

SAM's only worked because they were human-shielded with captured NATO soldiers. Thoughtfully left that part out, didnt you.