Yeah, since the F-22A squadrons are re-equipped F-15C squadrons. The F-15C and F-15E squadrons are about the only ones (in addition to F-111 back then) to stay at 24.
Europe and 5th generation aircraft
- Thread starter Vivendi
- Start date
- Status
Again, follow my logic: which system proved to be more effective against USAF FOR IRAQ
1. Fighters
2. SAM's.
Which system proved to be more effective against USAF FOR YUGOSLAVIA
1. Fighters
2. SAM's.
Answer it here please please.
Do not hide behind completely unrelated "USAF still won".
Neither proved to be more effective. I don't have to hide behind anything because I know better than to look at SAMs and fighters in isolation. IAD is composed of both fighters and SAMs and the USAF has a well established method of rolling back IADS. If you are basing your incorrect assumptions on the fact that the fighter threat didn't present itself as much as SAMs did throughout the conflict then frankly you don't understand how to analyze the situation. Throughout ODS and OAF enemy fighters were present in significant numbers throughout both campaigns. Why do you think CAP sorties were flown every day of both operations?
The point is when during the first few days of the conflicts when the command and control networks were disrupted NEITHER fighters or SAMs could challenge coalition jets with any degree of effectiveness period. Thousands and thousands of strike sorties rained bombs and missiles on targets whenever and wherever the coalition chose to strike. Thats what you need to be focused on. Shooting down x number of jets after y attempts over z days is simply just a matter of the law of averages and not any measure of effectiveness.
I can't even believe this is something I have to explain.
-DA
So, in that case, you cant judge ANYTHING from Iraq war. Nor SAM effectivity, nor fighters effectivity. Why then you bring Iraq example here?
There is no question what much more modern and superior Airforce can defeat old, much inferior SAM and Air forces of 3rd world country. However, what it tells us about SAM's effectivity in more even scenarios?
You should choose either one or another. Either you count all these uneven wars as example, and then we have clear superior results of SAM's versus fighters for Air defense.
Or you dont count all these wars as example - but then we dont have ANY ground to judge SAM vs Airforce performance. Both SAM's, airforces and countermeasures are untested and unproven then against each over.
Sigh...it shows that if you can destroy the enemies ability to fight coherently, if you can overload his system and if you can dictate terms of the fight by maintaining an offensive posture you will win.
Being "much more modern" has nothing to do with it. You guys need to get over the obsession with being "modern" or "platforms". The Germans deployed much more modern weapons in some cases compared to the allies in WWII and they lost.
If you mean we have no grounds to judge SAMs vs U.S. Fighters alone then you are right! Because the USAF doesn't fight platform vs platform. No competent military would. The SAMs comms, the EM spectrum it needs, the POL it needs, the ammo it uses, it's personnel, the leadership is all under attack before and simultaneously with any actual physical attack on the SAM itself or before it can engage any targets of opportunity. Even stealth aircraft benefit from this where possible and do not simply rely on low RCS as their sole defense. Enemy fighters also face multiple threats.
PAY ATTENTION: WAR=MUGGING, not a joust.
-DA
Never said it did. I'm saying, you're so quick to bash my description of how to prevent enemy CAS. So I asked what in you mind would be an effective way for a third world nation to stop the USAF from conducting CAS (or make the AS ineffective) in a conflict against it?
Guys please, when you read my posts, read what I wrote. I try to be very precise with what I mean to avoid ambiguities, and yet there always seem to be inherent assumptions about me inferring something that's not actually there.
Chrom wrote:
To which you replied:They are BOTH more survivable and more effective than airforce. See comparable results of Iraq aviation...
Besides, by your logic - tanks, artillery, ATGM's, soldiers and knifes - are completely useless as well. After all, "your" leader ends up hanged
He wasnt protected solely by aviation, you know...
P.S. Ok, your version - what is the best AD? Surrender to USAF as soon as they funny look at you? Pretty smart move, but sadly outside sane military discussion.
So I said:
Again please try to realize, the reason why I'm trying to focus on abstraction in the discussion of IADS, is that there is third world military capable of standing up to the US on it's own. Therefore saying 3rd world IADS are easily rolled back, or in fact, giving an example of how any IADS can be rolled back by the USAF, is worthless in this argument. The USA spent 45% of world military spending in 2007. It's superior to all. We have to compare ~equal powers to be able to see the effect that IADS would have on a modern battlefield. This is why all the examples of 1st world airforces (usually USAF) annihilating 3rd world IADS are irrelevant to the discussion of IADS usefullness in principle. The assets that the ÜSAF has at it's disposal are unique in many cases to the USAF. In a conflict that doesn't involve the USAF (most don't
) it's a waste of time to include those capabilities in your assessment.So you basically want to play pretend. Not interested.Never said it did. I'm saying, you're so quick to bash my description of how to prevent enemy CAS. So I asked what in you mind would be an effective way for a third world nation to stop the USAF from conducting CAS (or make the AS ineffective) in a conflict against it?
Guys please, when you read my posts, read what I wrote. I try to be very precise with what I mean to avoid ambiguities, and yet there always seem to be inherent assumptions about me inferring something that's not actually there.
Chrom wrote:
To which you replied:
So I said:
Again please try to realize, the reason why I'm trying to focus on abstraction in the discussion of IADS, is that there is third world military capable of standing up to the US on it's own. Therefore saying 3rd world IADS are easily rolled back, or in fact, giving an example of how any IADS can be rolled back by the USAF, is worthless in this argument. The USA spent 45% of world military spending in 2007. It's superior to all. We have to compare ~equal powers to be able to see the effect that IADS would have on a modern battlefield. This is why all the examples of 1st world airforces (usually USAF) annihilating 3rd world IADS are irrelevant to the discussion of IADS usefullness in principle. The assets that the ÜSAF has at it's disposal are unique in many cases to the USAF. In a conflict that doesn't involve the USAF (most don't
Thanks
-DA
........ no. I want to be able to analyze a conflict that doesn't include a complete overmatch on one side. You seem to only be interested in analyzing how the USAF bombs third world dirt holes into sawdust. That's nice. But in that conflict nothing has any use. The defender might as well surrender before it even starts, because it's not like he has a chance.
So you insistence on including the USA in every analysis make the analysis skewed and worthless in terms of predicting anything, other then another American victory. :unknownWell what conflict do you want to analyze? I already told you Europe probably doesn't have the mass to fight effectively over western Russia because of it's IADS or anywhere off of continental Europe due to logistical issues within reason(I know Europe could hit places like Sri Lanka ect from the air). But then there has to be a point to doing the bombing in the first place. Nations usually use air attacks as a precursor so that rather limits the discussions unless you want to talk about history like the Falklands where RN IADS were found wanting as well as the Argentines. I'm trying to keep in the context of Europe. You might also want to look at Algeria vs France......... no. I want to be able to analyze a conflict that doesn't include a complete overmatch on one side. You seem to only be interested in analyzing how the USAF bombs third world dirt holes into sawdust. That's nice. But in that conflict nothing has any use. The defender might as well surrender before it even starts, because it's not like he has a chance.
-DA
That's just it. You opposed IADS in principle as ineffective, which seemed to imply that you thought IADS was unnecessary in principle. Hence why we're arguing in the abstract. But for example where it would matter is if Russian air defense systems all of a sudden turned up in Armenia during say another Armenia-Azeri conflict, or for example in Syria (which almost bought S-300 SAMs, but at last minute Putin cancelled deal by Israeli request) during another Arab-Israeli war. Or, like you mentioned, Algeria vs France, where we don't know the make up of the alleged second Algerian deal that's iirc still in the works for another ~7 billion. It could include additional SAMs and RLS to expand the Algerian AD into a real network. With their new MKAs and the several dozens older Fulcrums they could put up quite a fight, where France would have not much more then it's single aircraft carrier.
You still don't understand. No nation is just going to buy S-300s and suddenly be able to keep out nations like France and Israel that have comprehensive methods for dealing with such threats. Sure, the missile system is a greater threat but counter measures exist that modern nations will exploit. It takes time and experience to to tie those systems into a network then the network has to survive and maintain coherency. Otherwise you will get what happened over Libya in 1986 which had a quite capable IAD and was challenged by a proportional strike force.
Also, France has much more than just an aircraft carrier to deal with the IAD. Stop thinking platform vs platform. Do you think the French would stupidly fly into unsanitized airspace? There are at least a half a dozen ways the French could go after the IAD before the first fighter was ever even in range.
-DA
Again third world vs. first world. Even when 3rd world has the platforms, they never (almost never) have the systems. Though once again we're not necessarily talking about tomorrow. Algeria is far from even completing the deliveries in question, never mind mastering the system, and Europe is far too reliant on Algerian gas to go to war with them any time soon.
My familiarity with the French military is marginal. Do you have any info on their EW abilities?
Oh and as an afterthought wouldn't a CVBG be a system rather then a platform?
Of course they never have the systems, thats why they are 3rd world countries! Guess what else they don't have? The logistics to prosecute wars outside their borders which is why it's so rare for them to fight the kinds of "evenly matched" fights you keep lamenting about. This is why I said you want to play pretend.
French EW with regard to fighters is based on various internal self protection jamming suites rather than dedicated EW aircraft. French EW equipment is highly regarded but be careful of what you read on the net about French EW as it attracts a lot of fanboys and trolls.
-DA
Yes, IF you can overload his system. In more even scenarios you CANT overload his system, at least not without HUGE loses on your part.
And remember, while you try to overload his SAM network with bodies of your pilots, enemy bombers and fighters continue squashing your army and airfields, left undefended.
Oh? No? Nothing to do with it? So we now should scrap all F-22 and get Mig-21? We can argue all day long about WW2, but it have nothing to do with SAM's and airforces.
This goes both way. SAM's users also will not fight "platform vs platform", and you low-alt flying fighters, trying to avoid SAM's, will be easy meat for enemy fighters. Your airfield will be at least temporary suppressed by successful enemy bombers penetration and/or cruise/BM missiles barrage.
Remember, we are speak about more "even" situation, to discover true abilities of SAM's.
[/QUOTE]
Grand Danois
Entertainer
How about two countries with an equal amount of resources and tech savvy. Country A follows your concept, country B follows DAs concept. Then they go toe to toe.
Personally I'd say country B will prevail or win, as it will be able to maintain initiative and reach out and touch country B to a much further degree than country A. SAMs wait for things to happen.
Bullcrap, you can always overload the system. Study David and Goliath. The Israeli raid on Entebe. The Israeli raid on Syria recently. The way the Israelis delt with the SAMs in 1973. Operation El Dorado Canyon. AQ air attack during 9/11. The Atomic Bombings of Japan. The Attack on Pearl Harbor. The Argee Exocet attacks on the Royal Navy. The AH-64 attacks on Iraqi EW sites. Iraqi SCUD attacks on Israel.
In all those cases the attacking force was proportional or smaller than the defense. In all cases they thoroughly penetrated tough SAM or AAA defenses by not playing into the enemies strength. Overload doesn't mean you have to flood the skies with so many jets they can't all be shot down. Only an idiot would try that when there are other demonstrated ways to penetrate even the most modern air defense.
You who keep screaming about evenly matched forces haven't seemed to notice that competent commanders don't fight fairly nor do they choose aerial versions of WW I attrition warfare by flying into IADS. Nor do they rely on defensive postures to fight wars. They AVOID, DEGRADE or DESTROY IADS through deception and strategem.
I keep telling you this is not a sporting event. It's War. Winning has nothing to do with advanced technology or numerical superiority. Study your military history. Too many examples exist for you not to see this. This "evenly matched" nonsense is fanboy talk or incompetent leadership.
-DA
Nope. Arab-Israel war is not an example of overloading the system in more even conflict. As i already pointed out, comparable developed Arabic aviation achieved even less. This lead us to the fact - the conflict was not even.
In all these cases enemy aviation showed itself even worse, and was even easer disabled. Again, this lead us to conclusion - the conflict was not EVEN.
I mean, if Arabs were so incompetent with own airforce (which btw always got elite ppls) , why they would be somehow more competent with SAM's?
In more appropriate scenario it is YOUR airforces could be bombed to aches and destroyed like Arabic ones.
You, on the other hand, like bringing examples of greatly 1-sided encounters. These examples cant prove anything at all. I repeat, in more even conflict you will not be able to easy degrade or destroy enemy IADS. Your air forces will simply suffer much greater causalities and will be destroyed before sufficiently degrade enemy IADS.
If you think otherwise - prove it.
Exactly, this is war. There is absolutely ZERO point to argue if SAM's. airforces, tanks, etc are useful or not at the example of extremely 1-sided conflict.
Because in such conflict stronger side can use absolutely ANY tactic and ANY weapon and still win decisively.
I repeat, ask any pilot you know - which things feel as dangerous the most while flying other Iraq or Yugoslavia - enemy fighters or enemy SAM's.
You again bring Arab-Israel war here... only few posts ago you denied this example on the ground "oh, Israels were not ready for SAM's and thats why they suffered so huge casualties".
Stick already on one side or another.
P.S. Lets give an example. Imagine Iraq having 20 F-22. Here goes USAF with 2000+ F-15 and destroys Iraq without any losses, including F-22. And then everyone scream how these F-22 are useless, how impotent are they. Absurd.
Or another scenario... USA (hmm,no. let it be Russia instead of USA for ) attacks Iran and obliterate it. Now everyone screams how bad and useless F-15 , F-18 and F-22 (hell, complete USA airforce in general) are - because Iranian ancient F-4 and F-14 were no show. Absurd.
B is a country with airforce only? It will lose bad. Because with same resources, side A will still have 3/4 of side A airforce, but much better protection and general control other own airspace due to SAM's , and even some control over close frontline enemy airspace with SAM's.
Side A could strike almost as hard as B, but will be order of magnitude better defended.
Chrom you have a severe misunderstanding of the facts and misconceptions of war in general. I've tried as much as I care to thus far to explain it to you. Even your last assertion of side B being at a disadvantage is not supportable by facts or military history. Keep looking for your "even matches".
-DA
-DA
1. History is full of examples of stronger sides getting themselves defeated. FULL OF EXAMPLES.
2. What subjective nonsense. KC-135 pilots, F-16CJ pilots and F-15C pilots would all tell you different answers about what threatened them most. THIS IS SUPPOSED TO BE AN ANALYSIS.
Chrom just quit while you can. You don't understand what you debate friend. Seriously.
-DA
- Status