Differences in Soviet and NATO doctrines in using unguided aerial rockets ?

[Loaded_Dice]

This question came up on my mind after reviewing some videos of Su-25 and Mi-24 actions yesterday and having so much time spent on flying Eagle Dynamics simulators. Don't you agree that the Russian and other air forces using soviet era equipment and tactics tend to depend on the use of unguided aerial rocket projectiles on a much larger scale than their NATO counterparts ? Almost every video out there of Russian aircraft in action shows them firing a wide range of unguided rockets types, while the western doctrine is to use them only in army aviation and even then on a very limited scale as an area denial weapon. Is this only a question of tactical doctrine or economy and training comes into play as well (I assume this is among the cheapest types of aerial weapon and requires less training to use it to some effect) ? My impression is that unguided rockets simply lack the power and precision to be an effective weapon and that is the main reason why they are not in widespread use with NATO air forces which have the option of using guided weapons in comparison with eastern air forces which don't have such luxury due to economical constrains.

Edited July 21, 2011 by Loaded_Dice

[EtherealN]

I'm not sure I'd say it requires less training - using unguided weapons is difficult. I'd probably suspect it's mainly a question of money - after the collapse of the soviet union the russian economy spent a long while in recovery and military projects were severely cut, causing russian aviation to still have a lot of planes that are made to use unguided rockets. Rebuilding and replacing several hundred aircraft is expensive and takes time, and NATO air forces had a head start in doing this transition.

 

I don't know if that really is the reason though, it's mainly a guess. You can compare with the question of why russian aviation relies to a much higher degree on semiactive A2A missiles than NATO cuntries do.

 

The russian arms industry is definitely doing some interesting catchup work though, so it'll be interesting to see how their doctrine evolves as new materiel comes into operational use.

[RIPTIDE]

This question came up on my mind after reviewing some videos of Su-25 and Mi-24 actions yesterday and having so much time spent on flying Eagle Dynamics simulators. Don't you agree that the Russian and other air forces using soviet era equipment and tactics tend to depend on the use of unguided aerial rocket projectiles on a much larger scale than their NATO counterparts ? Almost every video out there of Russian aircraft in action shows them firing a wide range of unguided rockets types, while the western doctrine is to use them only in army aviation and even then on a very limited scale as an area denial weapon. Is this only a question of tactical doctrine or economy and training comes into play as well (I assume this is among the cheapest types of aerial weapon and requires less training to use it to some effect) ? My impression is that unguided rockets simply lack the power and precision to be an effective weapon and that is the main reason why they are not in widespread use with NATO air forces which have the option of using guided weapons in comparison with eastern air forces which don't have such luxury due to economical constrains.

There's a number of reasons...

 

Economy is definitely one of them. Then of course there is a different pervasive philosophy. The difference between reducing risk through considerable expenditure and accepting risk for less expense. (unguided rocket attacks are more risky than JDAMS.) We've seen plenty of media clips and private footage from Iraq/Afghanistan of NATO member forces dropping LGBs on snipers. It reduces risk but at great expense. Then of course there is operational history. NATO member countries have had themselves in conflicts against 2nd world countries that actually have Armour and some level of sophistication. Russia and its predecessor, the Soviet Union had a few conflicts mostly against very low tech opponents. And for the foreseeable future that's how it looks.

 

All of the factors above have a good weighting on why they the likes of S-8's are used. Also there is the inventory question. If you got it, use it. And I imagine they have built up vast stockpiles of those little S-8's.

[Pilotasso]

Former eastern block countries have less money to spend on smart weapons that get spent faster as they are stored in smaller numbers. NATO countries also have large inventories of unguided weaponry but they are used last due to demanding public opinion.

[tflash]

Well, I also wondered about this. Rockets seem to be firmly entrenched both in Russian doctrine as well as in my Lockon/DCS habits, to be honest.

 

The big boon for rockets is that they are cheap and (relative to the cost) reliable. They are the Kalashnikov of A2G warfare, and Libyan rebels recently proved to be very inventive in reusing them.

 

Although imho a cannon is better (more precise), I think the main value of rockets is psychological: People tend to chicken away from explosions, so even if you do not really hit much, the enemy will leave his position.

 

Rockets would certainly gain renewed interest when western forces would be confronted with massive troop invasions.

 

Anyway even A-10C are again using rockets in Afghanistan, not only for marking but also to suppress areas.

 

I aslo found a picture of an IR-guided rocket being loaded on an Apache, but couldn't find any more info about that. laser or IR guidance would hugely improve the rockets lethality but would also hit the price tag.

[Loaded_Dice]

It seems that the effect of these rockets should not be underestimated in certain combat scenarios, otherwise the Russians would not have kept using them for so long. However, I always prefer using a smaller number of higher caliber rounds like the S-24 or at least the S-13 as opposed to salvos of S-8 in the simulator. Of course, a salvo of even the outdated S-5 can cover a lot of area and provide a useful alternative to cluster bombs in dealing with enemy troop concentration or guerrillas who are spread across the area. I suppose in real combat sometimes is enough to wound or scare the opponent instead of disintegrating him into little pieces :-). And even a direct hit of few S-8's can knock down an Abrams tank in the simulator, so if take this for an indicator of any real life performance it is clear why more and more air arms who have large stockpiles of these rockets are making decisions to upgrade them with some guidance capability ( USA, Israel and Russia leading the way) taking into consideration the availability and falling prices of the technology used in the guidance kits.

[RIPTIDE]

It seems that the effect of these rockets should not be underestimated in certain combat scenarios, otherwise the Russians would not have kept using them for so long. However, I always prefer using a smaller number of higher caliber rounds like the S-24 or at least the S-13 as opposed to salvos of S-8 in the simulator. Of course, a salvo of even the outdated S-5 can cover a lot of area and provide a useful alternative to cluster bombs in dealing with enemy troop concentration or guerrillas who are spread across the area. I suppose in real combat sometimes is enough to wound or scare the opponent instead of disintegrating him into little pieces :-). And even a direct hit of few S-8's can knock down an Abrams tank in the simulator, so if take this for an indicator of any real life performance it is clear why more and more air arms who have large stockpiles of these rockets are making decisions to upgrade them with some guidance capability ( USA, Israel and Russia leading the way) taking into consideration the availability and falling prices of the technology used in the guidance kits.

Well, the S-8KOM will slice through the roof of anything. The flechette variant of the S-8 and S-5 was used with devastating effect in A'stan in the 80's on caravans.

[mikoyan]

I also think that NATO forces are more prone to the public scrutiny so their weapons must be precise and great emphasis is placed on reducing collateral damage. Also the public opinion places great pressure on the military if there is casualties between allied forces creating the necessity to design weapons that reduce the exposure to enemy fire; in other words; public pressure forces de military to come up with safer ways to deliver weapons precisely and safer.

I don't see the same level of concern in Russia for example the recent Ossetia conflict; loses like the ones suffered by russia would have been unacceptable here in the States.

 

Rockets and su-25s do the job and very cheap; an old school approach to war; but again the su-25 become more susceptible of getting shoot down than if they were using guided weapons.

Maybe there is also a psychological factor; it must be very scary to suddenly see an airplane coming at you at 700 km/h and firing rockets at you! also it also inspire the troops to fight harder once they see that su-25 dropping bombs and rockets over the enemy nearby.

[Zakatak]

Would I load up my Timberwolf with a pair of LRM-20's or would I just mount an Arrow IV Thunderbolt? The former, because even if it has the same cumulative damage and less range, it's so fkin cool to hear a barrage of 40 missiles fire at once.

 

^

 

For Mechwarriors only ;)

[slug88]

Then of course there is operational history. NATO member countries have had themselves in conflicts against 2nd world countries that actually have Armour and some level of sophistication. Russia and its predecessor, the Soviet Union had a few conflicts mostly against very low tech opponents. And for the foreseeable future that's how it looks.

 

I'd argue that Russia's most recent opponent, Georgia, was operating with arms of a comparatively more advanced tech level than any opponent a NATO member has fought since the inception of NATO. The equipment employed by the Georgian ground forces was comparable, if not superior, to that used by Russia in the conflict. Of course, that's only a single conflict and a recent one to boot, so its influence on Russian doctrine, if any, likely won't be visible to us for quite some time.

[EtherealN]

of a comparatively more advanced tech level than any opponent a NATO member has fought since the inception of NATO.

 

Iraq? ;)

[RIPTIDE]

I'd argue that Russia's most recent opponent, Georgia, was operating with arms of a comparatively more advanced tech level than any opponent a NATO member has fought since the inception of NATO. The equipment employed by the Georgian ground forces was comparable, if not superior, to that used by Russia in the conflict. Of course, that's only a single conflict and a recent one to boot, so its influence on Russian doctrine, if any, likely won't be visible to us for quite some time.

The Georgians looked real nice with their brand new G3's.... as they ran the whole way back to Tblisi. :)

 

But I understand what you're saying ;) Still it was not without loss. 4 Su-25's down in a few days? In the entire Afghan War 25 Su-25's were irrecoverable losses out of tens of thousands of sorties.

Edited July 23, 2011 by RIPTIDE

[RIPTIDE]

Iraq? ;)

Iraq was reasonably advanced, no doubt. but their best men were already dead and their economy was crushed. That was before the Gulf war. ;)

[slug88]

Iraq? ;)

 

I don't have the knowledge to definitively address which nation had superior arms on an absolute scale, but in terms of technology relative to their opponent, there's no doubt that Georgia was better equipped than Iraq.

[EtherealN]

I don't agree. Show me the Georgian fighter force, for example. Oh, they had none? ;)

 

That's a MAJOR thing.

[slug88]

True, the Iraqi air force in '91 had far greater capability than did the Georgian air force at any point in time. But I'm not directly comparing Iraq to Georgia, I'm comparing the difference in equipment between Iraq and the US to the difference in equipment between Georgia and Russia. In this sense, the dramatically outclassed Iraqi airforce isn't that much more impressive than the Georgian AF. In fact, though Georgia and Russia both flew Su-25's in the conflict, I believe the Georgian ones were more modernized. True, the Georgians lacked fighters, but in my mind this is easily offset by the rest of the Georgian TOE. Imagine if in GW1 the Iraqi's were flying A-10's, driving M1s, and shooting Hawks at the Americans.

[EtherealN]

Imagine if in GW1 the Iraqi's were flying A-10's, driving M1s, and shooting Hawks at the Americans.

 

It wouldn't have helped them. The point to the "easy" victory was establishing mastery of the air through suppressing and destroying the enemy air force and air defence forces. If the Iraqi's had A-10's, the A-10's would have been shot down at leisure. M1's would then have been blown up at leisure by strikers, and any Hawk site that dared to turn it's radar on would have a score of HARMs headed it's way.

 

In a fight between regular armies, if one has an effective air force and the other doesn't... The one with the air force wins.

 

You can compare with what happened at Yom Kippur when the Egyptians advanced out of the SAM shield and thus became targets for the Israeli air force - which the Egyptian air force was not yet able to meet effectively after the disaster of 67.

 

And there's also a dimension to this where this part of the force balance is relevant even if it isn't used. If you know the enemy has air power available, your options for maneuver become limited. If you know your own airforce is dominant, you can maneuver with confidence. Example of this could be WWII in Normandy, Caen, Falaise etc - the german efforts to get troops in the right places were devastated by the fact that any movement of troops that could be spotted by air would get interdicted. Thus, the allied forces (which arguably had equiment of lower quality and striking power as far as armor and artillery goes) could always maneuver, while the germans were stuck at either just holding ground or trying to retreat under air strikes.

 

Anyways, we are diverging a bit from the topic now. :P

[slug88]

It wouldn't have helped them. The point to the "easy" victory was establishing mastery of the air through suppressing and destroying the enemy air force and air defence forces. If the Iraqi's had A-10's, the A-10's would have been shot down at leisure. M1's would then have been blown up at leisure by strikers, and any Hawk site that dared to turn it's radar on would have a score of HARMs headed it's way.

 

I agree with you here. I'm not saying the Iraqi's would've fared much better, I'm just saying that the delta in Iraqi tech to US tech was greater than the delta in Georgian tech to Russian tech.

 

In a fight between regular armies, if one has an effective air force and the other doesn't... The one with the air force wins.

 

I agree with this and everything that followed, but none of it applies to the Iraqi airforce in GW1, because it was clearly not an effective airforce when going up against the US. As far as I know it was basically a non-factor in the overall war, which would've proceeded about the same if the Iraqi's didn't have a single fighter. In other words, both Russia and the US had the overwhelming air advantage, so I don't think the Iraqi fighters give them enough of an advantage over Georgia to make up for the rest of the Georgian TOE.

 

However, this is obviously a complex topic, and not one that we're likely to resolve without completely hijacking this thread (and then some) :). Therefore I'll retract my original assertion that "Russia's most recent opponent, Georgia, was operating with arms of a comparatively more advanced tech level than any opponent a NATO member has fought," and assert instead that Russia has fought a fairly sophisticated opponent in Georgia, and in that conflict precision guided munitions were probably often preferable to aerial rockets :D.

Edited July 23, 2011 by slug88

[tflash]

As I recall it analysts found that the Russian AF in the Georgian war had inadequate communication with its ground forces (resulting in some friendly fire losses), and failed to set up an aggressive SEAD campaign from the start. The Su-25's used rocket attacks (our topic of this thread) against small force concentrations that did have modern day Shorad air defenses. That made the Su-25's a little more vulnerable than necessary. I guess in this case laser guided munitions in better coordination with ground forces would have been more effective. The Su-25 needs better DIRCM and a laser guided pod be more survivable.

 

But I do think these western analysts where impressed by the speed and brute force of the Russian ground offensive. Which btw was also very classical "Russian" with panzers, a lot of rockets and Iskander missiles. But again, I think the aerial rocket attacks were a contributive part of this action: it certainly forced the georgians to withdraw; you must look at Su-25 in this tactics as a highly manoevrable MLRS battery, an airborne Grad.

[RIPTIDE]

What version of the Su-25A were they using? On the vids that most of us have seen they actually appear to have a HUD, VVI indicator, aiming reticle, velocity, bearing tape etc.

 

[Loaded_Dice]

It's the Su-25SM modernization. Like the comparable Su-25 Scorpion modernization from the Georgian side, I don't see any significant benefit from these projects since the main purpose of the Su-25 is to be a CAS aircraft and neither modernization programs addresses that primary mission, instead focusing on not so crucial things like improved navigation systems, fancy HUD and MFD's while the weapon's suite and the defensive capabilities remain the same in both of these cases with unguided rockets still being the primary weapon of choice, hence not improving the aircraft in any significant way because of the lack of more modern guided munitions. Taking into consideration my experience with the A-10C simulator so far, it's the eyeball Mk1 sensor which is all about in the CAS mission, although pods and fancy equipment can help but only if accompanied with new weapons like in the case of the A-10C modernization program. In comparison, these two Su-25 modernization projects where only avionics equipment was introduced might provide some improvements in the aircraft but not in such a qualitative way like in the A-10C modernization.

Edited July 23, 2011 by Loaded_Dice

[asparagin]

It's not only about the cost of the weapons itself, but also the cost of the investment in research, which smart weapons require.

On long term the research pays out (smart weapons definitely have the advantage) but if you can't afford the research, well you can still keep somehow up, by using a mass of cheap weapons. After the motto: "A lot helps a lot"

This is similar to the WW2 situation by the way.

[tflash]

I would say the miodernized HUD has a more precise pipper, allowing him to stay higher than what we usually would do with a vanilly Su-25 in Lockon. (He tries to stay above 1000 meters in the dive, roughly 3000 feet, then climbs quite high. The video highlights imho the qualities of the good old Su-25: he flies fast (500-600 km/h) and can climb quite quickly out of harms way.

 

I definitely would want to have the SU-25SM upgrade in Lockon! But in essence you are right: they should have bought a current generation laser pod instead and put some money in the development of a true GBU-12 class weapon.