Air Defense for Armored Formations

[Waylander]

Hehehe.

The Brits know how to have a break.

 

[FutureTank]

I was training with The First Queens Dragoons Guards in Staffan Walden England and was surprised to have a hot water heater below my gunners seat on a Skorpion light tank, they said it was for tea.

Was there a complementary buiscuit tin? :coffee

 

[eckherl]

Was there a complementary buiscuit tin? :coffee

Nope - just the crappy little crackers and marmalade.

 

[FutureTank]

That said, we DID pay attention to the basics of SPAAG and towed AAA systems but only until the USAF became such a monster (and nukes such an all-consuming threat) that the difference between 'main force' = Russian backed = Nuclear brinksmanship by assumption and 'round the back' guerilla campaigns quickly became one of airpower only to the first mushroom cloud. And no air threat at all.
In this, so long as the USAF could dominate nuclear policy 'by virtue of denying an investment in tactical AD' then the Russians were forced to face the probability of one-bomber-one-nuke-one-tank-division threats which they 'had to defend against' because we were clearly trip wired to a an instant SIOP level, even in Germany. Fortunately the Russians were too stupid to see that this made ANY attempt to 'expand through wars of revolution' a socialist agenda nothing but an exercise in headbeating on a brick wall of not being able to own what they took except as ashes.

It seems to me that the US reached 'nuclear breankmanship' first, and the entire post-WW2 doctrine (until 1973) was based on use of nuclear weapons.
The expansion of Communism through revolution in general succeeded since only in Chile, and only through massive abuse of human rights was Socialism halted. Everywhere else US failed, and even France withdrew from NATO for a time, so the Russians were not that stupid.

They were also the first to recognize effects of radiation on troops by installing NBC systems in the T-55s. At the time USAF lacked guidance to deliver nuclear weapons directly onto an area occupied by a division moving at 30-60km per day. In any case after 1956 the use of nuclear weapons over Germany became a political no-no, and so we entered the missile age.

Once the missile development begun, so did the anti-missile AD, and high altitude interceptors. By USAF assessment the Soviet countermeasures were so effective that it talked Reagan into Star Wars.

 

[FutureTank]

Unlike the Russians who hold AD assets at Division level or higher

Lowest level of dedicated AD in Soviet Army was battalion level SA-7/14. Regiments had AD companies with SA-9/13s and ZSU-23-4s

 

[FutureTank]

... it would have been like fighting a Kodiak Bear in a Coat Closet. While mobbed by a swarm of Killer Bees.

Obviously expressions are derived at least to some degree on actual events, so I wonder when the first combat with a Kodiak bear trapped in a coat closet took place, and if it is related to the bear fur becoming a popular material for coat making, subsequently leading to them becoming a threatened species

As for the swarming, you actually insult the current US doctine-in-development by comparing it to an unrully mob...and somewhat confirming the expectations of some commentators

 

[FutureTank]

2. Modern AD is splitting down the middle, much as modern warfare itself is.

Are not guerrillas always aim to assume the role of the conventional force they are combating?

 

[FutureTank]

Acronyms

The likeliest way forward is in fact with ADSAM with an MP-RTIP inserted RQ-4 that can rapidly task switch from high rez/long dwell A2G mapper to cued-on-launch tracking of inbound threats, whether they be swarm drones from a ground launch box of their own.

I had to look it up, so might as well post it
MP-RTIP Multi-Purpose-Radar Technology Insertion Program

 

[Grand Danois]

I had to look it up, so might as well post it
MP-RTIP Multi-Purpose-Radar Technology Insertion Program

Hey, nobody post on this thread without at least a couple of acronyms!

 

[FutureTank]

The obvious solution, particularly for employment against systems like Rafale and it's Rocket Powered AASM [Advanced Air-to-Surface Missile] (which a recent DT article argues as being an FSO [Front-Sector Optronic] cued A2G [air-to-ground] weapon that could ONLY 'TISEO [Target Identification System, Electro-Optical] + Inertial Maverick' work from low-graze= low AGL [Above Ground Level] flight condition) as well as of course the various helos and drone-cruise hybrids (think Balkans and Deny Flight as much as Mi-24 and 'action right!' armour attack here) is to go to a turboSAM {Which is?}. Because such weapons are readily built from non-developmental target or recce drone technology, and while likely to be expensive until optimized in missioned (?) mass production; they also don't obey the single-shot rule on either acquiring a target or setting up the geometry for an optimized attack, and if need be /reattack/ (re-acquire?) sequence. As they don't have a ballistic over-LOS trajectory condition, nor a single pass hit-or-miss-completely conditioned intercept. Indeed, at anything from 150 to 550 knots they can motor right on up and get a 'formatting kill' (?){proximity-kill?}, complete with a target flash image and wardet (?) signal.

Sorry Kurt, but your solution wasn't so obvious to me
Could you elaborate?

 

[FutureTank]

Hey, nobody post on this thread without at least a couple of acronyms!

:unknown
http://www.sew-lexicon.com/cyr_a.htm
http://acronyms.thefreedictionary.com/

 

[Big-E]

Hey, nobody post on this thread without at least a couple of acronyms!

... at least a couple of acronyms

 

[eckherl]

nfloorl:

... at least a couple of acronyms

 

[FutureTank]

... at least a couple of acronyms

'Please, sir, I want some more.'

 

[.pt]

Yummy soup!!
i´ll bet that is favorite amongst Pentagon Cafeteria customersnfloorl:
Anyway, back to topic, It really seems a mistake to just put the task of airdefence almost entirely in the USAF shoulders, leaving little assets to protect units in the field. In case a Major conventional conflict between US and other forces arises (OK very small probability), and these succeed to contain USAF, then ground forces may feel very exposed to enemy atacks by air or missiles, since other assets may not be sufficient to stop all incoming atacks. Let´s hope that will never happen.
I like more Russian and European way, of giving groundforces more cover with these tracked AAA or SAM. Reminds me of Yom kippur in 1973, and the beating IAF took to those SAM umbrellas, in the first days.
comments anyone?
.pt

 

[FutureTank]

It really seems a mistake to just put the task of airdefence almost entirely in the USAF shoulders, leaving little assets to protect units in the field.

This is a very importnat point to make for US DoD. The doctrine since WW2 has been that Air Force has had to 'prove' itself (after gaining independence) and that it can defeat all manner of threats. However as the number of aircraft dwindle, and likely theatres of deployment for ground units expand (from Europe outwards) it is only a matter of time before a situation will ocur when US ground troops will discover themselves without fighter cover (which is also subject to weather that is often much worse on global scale then Europe)

In case a Major conventional conflict between US and other forces arises (OK very small probability), and these succeed to contain USAF, then ground forces may feel very exposed to enemy atacks by air or missiles, since other assets may not be sufficient to stop all incoming atacks. Let´s hope that will never happen.

Before Bush's election in 2000 the DoD was predicting the need to fight multiple (2) major conflicts in different theatres.

I like more Russian and European way, of giving groundforces more cover with these tracked AAA or SAM. Reminds me of Yom kippur in 1973, and the beating IAF took to those SAM umbrellas, in the first days. comments anyone?

China is working hard at building up an AD system even former Soviet Army would be envious of. Not only has it purchased S-300 'Patriot-like' systems, but also purchased licence for its manufacture in China. Essentially its strategy in a confrontation with the US is to swamp US air assets quite literally with AD assets. Aside from this newer system it retains all manner of older missile systems dating back to the 60s, and has also retained a vast number of gun AD artillery. One may think this is a waste, but including a dozen 60s era SAMs into the F-15's threat assessment adds to the stress on the sytems and their operators which may cause them to miss a really dangerous threat.

On the positive side it seems to me that air threats to ground units will begin to reduce as fuel for aircraft becomes more expensive (until alternatives are available). It is possible that air support may manifest itself in different ways.

 

[.pt]

Just an idea...
would it be feasiable to build fake radar transmitters that send also the signal of lock on and acompany these with fake SAM rockets?
If this would be feasable in a technical and economical way, then you could literally field hundreds if not thousands of fake SAM batterys alongside real ones, and overwhelm the enemys fighters defense and ECm suites. Hard to tell the real ones from the fakes, then you have no choice but respond to all signals/threats. Or else act as China, as you stated, jus saturate the sky with AAA and SAMs, old or new gen. alike, that might give the defenders a chance...
.pt

 

[FutureTank]

Just an idea...
would it be feasiable to build fake radar transmitters that send also the signal of lock on and acompany these with fake SAM rockets?
If this would be feasable in a technical and economical way, then you could literally field hundreds if not thousands of fake SAM batterys alongside real ones, and overwhelm the enemys fighters defense and ECm suites. Hard to tell the real ones from the fakes, then you have no choice but respond to all signals/threats. Or else act as China, as you stated, jus saturate the sky with AAA and SAMs, old or new gen. alike, that might give the defenders a chance...
.pt

What do you mean by 'feasible'?!
It has been a part of AD tactics in Soviet Army since day 1 of using SAMs. Read on the expereince of aircraft crews over North Vietnam.

It doesn't so much apply at divisional level, but at higher echelons the AD regiments and brigades have deception sets.

 

[.pt]

Sorry for the bad english.

I searched a bit and couldn´t find anything on fake or deception sets for SAMs.
Did read a bit about linebacker missions and saw nothing related to this. Only real SA-2 in action, as well as AAA. Could you post a link?
.pt

 

[wittmanace]

whilstthe idea of saturation of the skies with sams sounds like a good idea and one that would work, i do have my reservations.... if the sams are jammed, it simply doesnt matter how many there are. for this we can look at iraqi air saturation (baghdad), and how that ended up (not) working out. we can also look at '73 where sa6 was countered after initial heavy losses for the israeli air force....or even bekaa valley 82, and we see that missiles that can be countered in the manner of them failing to achieve a lock dont have any advantage in greater numbers. there are countter examples like the 250th missile regiment in serbia (nighthawk and f16 shot down), but these examples are counter to the trend, and therefore shouldnt be the basis for analysis of real, practical use, but only a theoretical worst case (for airmen) scenario. i imagine big-e would be good to ask about his assesment here, to hear how he perceives the threat of the saturation scenario.

one thing i wonder is how long the high intensity war can last between two level/evenly matched forces. my theory here is that with the cost and expenditure (life, equipment, ammunition, so forth) and with the pace of the conflict, it might degenerate into lower tech combat within a short period of time, with dumb bombs and aaa coming into use....this is where the idea of saturation might come in. with china, for example, starting to use low tech cheap means such mas their license built mig 15s and so forth in front line roles....which would mean of course large numbers of aircraft in the skies, and a need for more sams for division and lower air defence.

in that scenario, saturation would be devastating i think, but would require other factors in place, such as initial strikes and counter strikes against enemy air bases, heavy aerial combat, and both sides using massed ground forces on the move. this would be an almost all out war (no nuke use) and would require both sides to survive the initial high intensity conflict with high tech, to allow for numbers to come in to play.

the question here is...what forces would these include? the chinese would do this if the high intensity conflict is survived, but against whom could this occur? the us doesnt actually use low tech aircraft in any numbers...though i have no idea how many older sams they could call on. its hard to see how this scenario that would allow for the successful use of saturation by sams could occur....

perhaps in an arab israeli war...but that would require perhaps greater sam arsenals than any side in a potential conflict has/ could have available..

perhaps china/taiwan might see saturation of all forms if this ever occurs.