In other words I'm being realistic. Have a look around, the only nations that have a big bad scary IADS are at a competitive disadvantage in the air vs their enemies. That is the real world, even between comparable powers that is the norm, simply because if you had the competitive advantage in the air you wouldn't invest heavily in GBAD. Personally i don't see the point in creating extremely artificial scenario's simply to illustrate a systems potential capability.
But potential capability is the subject we're arguing about isn't it? So it illustrate it fully and understand it's capabilities we have to initially look at it with all other variables being equal. Then after we've done that, we can proceed to apply what we've discovered to a real conflict situation to be able to say, for example: In the case of Algeria there are simply not enough systems to cover the air space. As a result no coherent IADS will emerge unless additional weapon purchases are made.
Using normal terminology that would be a battery (PATRIOT batteries are organized in that manner, as are their larger formations i.e. a battalion). But in line with the Russian way of doing things that wouldn't surprise me if they called 1 system a battalion, just like an infantry battalion is a regiment, a fighter squadron is a regiment, ect. Whatever they call it 8 systems and some point defense does not constitute an IADS.
In Russia 2 fighter squadrons are a regiment, each squadron has 12 airframes.
It actually pisses me of when people do this. When did i ever say "SAMs and no Air force"? When i refer to an IADS i do mean all of its elements, airborne included. When I'm referring to SAM's alone I'll say GBAD.
my apologies, it just seems like you're denying that the side with IADS has comprehensive airborne capabilities across the spectrum, the way the attacking side does.
No sh*t sherlock! Do you think that adding fighters to an IADS (they were there anyway) somehow drastically alters the balance? Airborne elements can be dislocated, outmaneuvered and penetrated as easily as GBAD by superior EW & ISR capability. And remember if your not the guy who invested heavily in a IADS, you spent your pennies on those very systems.
Yes you do drastically alter the balance, because now you can conduct your own offensive strikes using your own EW and ISR capabilities. Now you have a comprehensive IADS and the other side doesn't, whose strikes are likely to be more damaging?
Again you miss the primary point I've been making since the first paragraph i wrote in this conversation. Yes at a tactical level you may have some defense against air power, my point is so what? If you have lost your C4I capability, and if your IADS is reduced to tactical elements you can bet your ass you have, then that formation that your tac-SAM's are protecting will out-maneuvered, out-fought and decimated.
I'm talking about a tactical level IADS that functions outside of your regular theater wide network. For example an armored division makes a break through and is behind enemy lines read to encircle and destroy. But it's outside of the operational reach of the regular division level SAMs. As a result you can still have limited AD capabilities by datalinking tac-SAMs and the fighters supporting this advance, to prevent enemy CAS from decimating your armored force.
Your still missing my point. If we are talking about comparable powers (if we are not then there is no way the IADS would be under attack) and the defender has AEW, SAM's, a significant fighter presence, C3 redundant communications and mobile C2 ect, then the attacker will have more capable ISR, EW and air power. If they didn't they wouldn't be attacking.
So you're saying that nobody is going to attack unless the have a huge advantage? But we have so many conflicts from history were the attacker didn't have a huge advantage, or thought he did and turned out to be wrong, or forgot to account for certain variables, and as a result the playing field was evened out. This is why I'm saying that to asses the effectiveness of IADS (and by the way I don't understand why the IADS user has to be on the defensive? with all mobile SAMs, and making sure to capture enemy airfields intact as much as possible the IADS could move as part of the advancing forces, as was envisioned in the Soviet doctrine) we have to take other variables as equal.
Here's the critical point, relying on a defensive strategy in a scenario like this is going to end up in you loosing in 9 out of 10 cases.
Again, why defensive?
Now your talking about something all together different from the uber IADS described earlier with tipple digit SAMs, multiple (redundant) comm nodes, mobile & redundant C3, AWACS, fighters, tac-SAM's & AAA all networked and integrated, with MANPADS thrown in at low level. If you have all of that, and still posses the offensive capability to effectively penetrate the enemies defenses then you are probably dealing a lessor power anyway and you had no need for all of it in the fist place.[/quote]
If you're relatively equal across the spectrum, with your only disadvantage being that the enemy has IADS on a serious networked level and you don't, does that make you a lesser power?
Like i said before GBAD & ADS defiantly has its place on the modern battlefield, but the most successful strategy in state on state conflicts for the last 50 odd years has been pre-emption & offensive warfare. Relying on your IADS as the centerpiece of the air element of your campaign, as you appear to advocate, goes against the grain of recent military history. If you are forced into that position by being put in a position of disadvantage in the air, then relying one an uber, GBAD centric IADS is the only option, and if your up against a casualty averse western power, inflicting as many casualties as possible may indeed have strategic effects.
Why centerpiece? Where did I say that? I'm focusing on the IADS, because I don't think i honestly need to try to prove to you the need for an effective air superiority force. The question is what happens when both sides have relatively comparable A2A capabilities and one side has a networked IADS and the other doesn't?
By investing that heavily in your IADS you are doing so at the determent of your offensive capability. You have to look at the opportunity cost, there is only so much budget to go around.
Of course, but several things:
1) We have an artificial scenario to asses the capabilities of IADS. Once we know those, we can judge how much should be spent on it.
2) Decreasing marginal returns. Investing in capabilities across the spectrum is more advantageous then focusing in several narrow areas, and having nothing to account for the rest. Hence why even the US has SAMs, and uses extensive IADS for it's fleets.
