Combat Reform Respect Thread: Only Real Experts Allowed

[Zachowon]

It would he flying close to the FLOT, which means artillery support for SEAD/DEAD.

 

[The Whispering Monk]

FLOT

Forward Line Of Troops for those unaware.

 

[Aaron Fox]

It would he flying close to the FLOT, which means artillery support for SEAD/DEAD.

I wouldn't be surprised if artillery shells got a SEAD/DEAD upgrade or if all ARMs in the future were either cluster munition only or useless.

Counterpoint: It's the third year of the war, yet plenty of Su-25's, planes of similar age and characteristics, still fly on both sides, despite being used very much, over the most AA filled battlefield since Vietnam.

This is mainly because it's a matter of density, not numbers. From my understanding, SHORAD level AA and higher have surprisingly low density throughout this conflict. As the US learned, MANPADs are kind of useless in situ.

 

[Marduk]

This is mainly because it's a matter of density, not numbers. From my understanding, SHORAD level AA and higher have surprisingly low density throughout this conflict. As the US learned, MANPADs are kind of useless in situ.

Only because the planes rarely get into their range, that's the trick. The attack planes are generally not being used to "get down and dirty" like they are normally known for, but to sling unguided rockets from a semi-ballistic trajectory (as many videos show), or throw standoff weapons when right ones available. It's risky and they get shot down sometimes if they make a small mistake...
But so do more expensive Su-34's that are supposed to be actually hard to shoot down.

 

[Zachowon]

I wouldn't be surprised if artillery shells got a SEAD/DEAD upgrade or if all ARMs in the future were either cluster munition only or useless.

Eh, not really. GPS guidance already helps as does long range

This is mainly because it's a matter of density, not numbers. From my understanding, SHORAD level AA and higher have surprisingly low density throughout this conflict. As the US learned, MANPADs are kind of useless in situ.

There is plenty of both, MANPADS aee valuable for low level flying

Only because the planes rarely get into their range, that's the trick. The attack planes are generally not being used to "get down and dirty" like they are normally known for, but to sling unguided rockets from a semi-ballistic trajectory (as many videos show), or throw standoff weapons when right ones available. It's risky and they get shot down sometimes if they make a small mistake...
But so do more expensive Su-34's that are supposed to be actually hard to shoot down.

This basically

 

[ShadowArxxy]

Only because the planes rarely get into their range, that's the trick. The attack planes are generally not being used to "get down and dirty" like they are normally known for, but to sling unguided rockets from a semi-ballistic trajectory (as many videos show), or throw standoff weapons when right ones available. It's risky and they get shot down sometimes if they make a small mistake...
But so do more expensive Su-34's that are supposed to be actually hard to shoot down.

Case in point: during the '91 Gulf War, the A-10s were the *only* Coalition air taking damage from Iraqi AA guns and MANPADs. . . because they were the only Coalition air that actually entered the low-altitude bracket at all. All other air support remained in the medium-altitude bracket; the A-10s initially did as well, but were later authorized to get down low where they were most effective, since the risk was manageable.

 

[Doomsought]

Case in point: during the '91 Gulf War, the A-10s were the *only* Coalition air taking damage from Iraqi AA guns and MANPADs. . . because they were the only Coalition air that actually entered the low-altitude bracket at all. All other air support remained in the medium-altitude bracket; the A-10s initially did as well, but were later authorized to get down low where they were most effective, since the risk was manageable.

Yeah, this is why to get a true comparisson you need to compare their performance and suitability to helicopters.

 

[ShadowArxxy]

Yeah, this is why to get a true comparisson you need to compare their performance and suitability to helicopters.

Yes, but I'm saying that a "manageable risk" in 1991 is "likely suicide" in 2023.

 

[Marduk]

Yes, but I'm saying that a "manageable risk" in 1991 is "likely suicide" in 2023.

TBH that depends on specific opponent involved and what they have. Syria, Libya or Afghanistan in 2023 would hardly be worse than then, while something like China would make it absolutely suicidal.

 

[Aaron Fox]

Case in point: during the '91 Gulf War, the A-10s were the *only* Coalition air taking damage from Iraqi AA guns and MANPADs. . . because they were the only Coalition air that actually entered the low-altitude bracket at all. All other air support remained in the medium-altitude bracket; the A-10s initially did as well, but were later authorized to get down low where they were most effective, since the risk was manageable.

Please note that the frames with the highest loss rate were 1) Tornados on anti-runway duty (because of the specs of their anti-runway ordinance was leaked to the Iraqis) and 2) A-10s...

Eh, not really. GPS guidance already helps as does long range

There is plenty of both, MANPADS aee valuable for low level flying

This basically

I mean that the shells have anti-rad guidance packages to purposely hunt down AA batteries.

Also, the 'unresponsiveness of MANPADS' is something that came out of the Bradley-Stinger abomination and its child, the M6 Linebacker (not the cool one with the ADATS racks, the one that is a Bradley with the TOW launcher replaced with a quad-Stinger launcher) from what I remember.

Only because the planes rarely get into their range, that's the trick. The attack planes are generally not being used to "get down and dirty" like they are normally known for, but to sling unguided rockets from a semi-ballistic trajectory (as many videos show), or throw standoff weapons when right ones available. It's risky and they get shot down sometimes if they make a small mistake...
But so do more expensive Su-34's that are supposed to be actually hard to shoot down.

Hence, why I said density; the funny thing is that air power is now becoming increasingly subservient to ground/naval assets as air defense capabilities increase and more nations invest in their production and deployment.

... I distinctly remember that, once upon a time, various air forces had men like Bomber Harris try to obsolete everything else via the 'bombers always get through' memetic hazard—a memetic hazard that died hard during Vietnam within most of the military.

 

[ShadowArxxy]

It should be noted that the "bombers always get through" as a meaningful point referred primarily to nuclear bombers, and was pretty much a matter of comparing the effectiveness of WWII era fighter interception + flak to the new reality that one bomber getting through meant you lost an entire city.

They didn't, even at peak Air Force uber alles, ever seriously think that bombers were invincible -- just that you couldn't shoot ALL of them down EVERY single time.

 

[ShadowArxxy]

Also, the 'unresponsiveness of MANPADS' is something that came out of the Bradley-Stinger abomination and its child, the M6 Linebacker (not the cool one with the ADATS racks, the one that is a Bradley with the TOW launcher replaced with a quad-Stinger launcher) from what I remember.

To be fair, the Bradley Stinger Fighting Vehicle Enhanced program which produced the M6 Linebacker was only ever meant as an stopgap SHORAD capability. The program itself is considered a pretty successful example of bypassing the normal equipment acquisition procedures to meet an urgent field need.

 

[ShadowArxxy]

I mean that the shells have anti-rad guidance packages to purposely hunt down AA batteries.

Downsizing and ruggedizing an anti-radiation seeker package into a guided artillery shell is. . . asking a lot. I am rather skeptical of this vis-a-vis HARM missiles.

 

[Zachowon]

Please note that the frames with the highest loss rate were 1) Tornados on anti-runway duty (because of the specs of their anti-runway ordinance was leaked to the Iraqis) and 2) A-10s...

I mean that the shells have anti-rad guidance packages to purposely hunt down AA batteries.

Also, the 'unresponsiveness of MANPADS' is something that came out of the Bradley-Stinger abomination and its child, the M6 Linebacker (not the cool one with the ADATS racks, the one that is a Bradley with the TOW launcher replaced with a quad-Stinger launcher) from what I remember.

Hence, why I said density; the funny thing is that air power is now becoming increasingly subservient to ground/naval assets as air defense capabilities increase and more nations invest in their production and deployment.

... I distinctly remember that, once upon a time, various air forces had men like Bomber Harris try to obsolete everything else via the 'bombers always get through' memetic hazard—a memetic hazard that died hard during Vietnam within most of the military.

HARM missiles are just better, and are more easily able to find the target due to nature of it being a missile.
Now, with that in mind, finding RADARs are fairly easy with a robust ELINT collection and targeting ability.
The best in the world one may say...

 

[Marduk]

Hence, why I said density; the funny thing is that air power is now becoming increasingly subservient to ground/naval assets as air defense capabilities increase and more nations invest in their production and deployment.

It's not density alone, if it was just MANPADS and crappier guns with right tactics getting closer would be doable. But that's not a given for all wars from now on.

... I distinctly remember that, once upon a time, various air forces had men like Bomber Harris try to obsolete everything else via the 'bombers always get through' memetic hazard—a memetic hazard that died hard during Vietnam within most of the military.

It should be noted that the "bombers always get through" as a meaningful point referred primarily to nuclear bombers, and was pretty much a matter of comparing the effectiveness of WWII era fighter interception + flak to the new reality that one bomber getting through meant you lost an entire city.

They didn't, even at peak Air Force uber alles, ever seriously think that bombers were invincible -- just that you couldn't shoot ALL of them down EVERY single time.

Yeah, there is a very contextual clause to this.
Depends on what war.
Bombers getting 20% attrition on their first sortie and possibly last sortie of a nuclear war is acceptable.
Bombers getting 20% attrition on a sortie in a conventional war in which they would be expected to do dozens or hundreds is catastrophic and unsustainable.
Even 2% attrition per sortie can pretty much wipe out a fleet of aircraft in a few weeks of intense combat.